Polls suck. Push polls suck even more, but there are grey areas between the two.
Here are some reasons why polls suck:
They're used to sway opinions. They assume people are honest in their answer to polls. People aren't even able to vote sincerely in a Plurality system on D-Day e.g. due to strategic voting. Why would they vote sincerely in a poll which bears no legal consequences? Because they're Christian, and God taught them not to lie? And I'm a Jehova...
Well, one of the big reasons for non-sincere voting (practically the only one) is that there are consequences; Vote for the guy you like, and the guy you hate will thrash the guy you mildly dislike.
In a poll, it doesn't work that way; there are secondary ways to game with polls, I know, like trying to persuade your opponent that to sit on a "lead", but they're much less prevalent.
The primary outcome is seeing your candidate do better in the polls, so you're most likely going to vote for your candidate. Especially on the ones that ask your vote for each of a series of possible pairings, so in each case it's a pure two-candidate race, and there's no issue with "do I help my real candidate or my practical candidate?".
Originally Posted by
They often lack options which contributes to swaying opinions. Take this very thread. A) Several candidates are excluded B) There is no blanc option C) There isn't an option to state one is not eligable to vote (e.g. minor, non-US citizen). Although it doesn't applt here they often implement the Plurality system which, arguably, doesn't allow the voter enough freedom to express their opinion.
In fairness, C doesn't apply here because it was not meant as a prediction of election results, but as a measure of the itT crowd, including those who were ineligible to vote. Would it be wrong to try to predict the election outcome with this? Well, only about a half-dozen different ways! That doesn't invalidate it for it's purpose though...
Maybe I'm a one-trick pony here with my election methods, but I don't see polls as being that big a problem. Are they unreliable? Yes. (Some are decent, but assume they're unreliable unless you know the methodology, the whole questions used, etc. Then, if they're clean, assume they're semi-reliable.) But they're nothing locking us into a 2-party system. It's the voting system, the whole voting system, and nothing but the voting system.
In fairness, C doesn't apply here because it was not meant as a prediction of election results, but as a measure of the itT crowd, including those who were ineligible to vote. Would it be wrong to try to predict the election outcome with this? Well, only about a half-dozen different ways! That doesn't invalidate it for it's purpose though...
I thought it was very clear? The options said I will/would, would implies "if I could"
As Bensons points out, this is not meant to show and prediction of election results. Its more of meant to show the minds of the people that hang out around here.
That there is only 10% at this point that voted down the conspiracy line is almost shocking from some of the crowd around here. I kind of thought that it would be higher
I agree with you about the two party system, however I think these candidates are not close on many issues. And if McCain would stop repeating Obama's slogans people would be much less confused about actual issues. I know nobody wants to talk about issues, they want to talk about lipstick and other non-issues.
McCains plans for healthcare will cover about 5million new people out of 45 million, Obama's plan covers about 37million out of the 45million people without health insurance.
I am not saying that either one is better than the other but there are DEFINITE differences between the candidates. These are not Moe or Moe. More like Curley or Shemp.
If you like going to the DMV, you'll love government run health care.
Today's Washington Post cites a poll that puts Obama up by 9 points among likely voters. This is the biggest spread I have seen by either side in any poll in this campaign.
In fact, I have coined a name for it:
The $700 Billion Bounce.
It's ironic that what is going on now is that the Republicans are in disarray and the Democrats are united. Many Republicans hate the $700 billion proposal made by the Bush administration, but others support it (for example, the Bush administration supports it, I think).
I offhandedly suggested that the Bush administration be nominated for a Nobel Prize for proposing Socialism for the US, but I was joking.
If you like going to the DMV, you'll love government run health care.
I already wait at my doctors for every appointment longer than at the DMV.
I also suppose if you do not have healthcare the DMV line would be welcome. Most people with insurance, dont use it unless they absolutely have to because they cannot afford it. Its health insurance not LIFE insurance.
Call it socialized medicine if you like. THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK. I'll take my chances on socialized medicine. Seems to make more sense than socialized stock market.
I'd put some thoughts in on relationships between socialised stockmarkets & medicine, but if I light in, we ain't dodging a flamewar nohow. You can probably guess where I stand, anyway.
So I'll toss in just one thought: can any system work?
I think that all the systems in the world deliver healthcare of one sort or another, so the answer is yes, ANY system works to a certain extent. The real question is, can our system work better.
I have a pragmatic point of view on this. I suspect it can work better, and I would like to see various fixes tried.
By the way, a big deal has been made about having a bureaucrat imposed between you and your doctor.
Do any of you NOT have bureaucrats imposed between you and your doctor already? My impression is that most people have one variety of HMO or another, and HMOs do have bureaucracy, does anyone disagree? Remember that big list of doctors you have to choose among? That is called bureaucracy. Before doctors can get on that list THEY have to agree to the rules of the bureaucracy.
So we are not so much talking about establishing a bureaucracy as improving it. Most of us don't make the rules about how we interact with our doctors, we abide by those someone else made up.
One more thing. People talk about the evils of government bureaucracy. I have had occasion to interact with Social Security bureaucracy lately. I found the bureaucracy nimble, fast, easy to get in contact with and reasonable. It was MUCH better than many private companies I have dealt with.
