Why We Shouldn't Believe Polls and Shouldn't Listen to Pundits

So, Barack Obama, who is in his first term as a US Senator, won the Democratic nod in the Iowa caucuses and Mike Huckabee, who currently doesn't hold any office and who was a one term Governor of Arkansas for the Republican nod. Some people might look at an outcome like that and say, wow, in the dead of winter a lot of college students showed up to vote in Iowa, clearly.

The Iowa caucses are held TEN MONTHS before the actual election. Candidates storm into the state, shake hands and speechify all over the place. I made up that wor,d speechify, but it describes what takes place. It is as near a religious revival experience as you ever get in politics, the first, frenzied primary in a contested presidential election year where it costs a fortune to get your name out there and the race has started so desperately early. Speechifying can do the trick in Iowa.

At least that's what I think. If you look at the pack of candidates (I call them a pack even though they don't travel together, just along the same routes, though they do tend to devour everything in their path.), Obama is a fairly liberal Democrat, and a bit of an outsider. People ask him if he inhaled, and he admits it, shamefully but honestly. He obviously didn't go to the Bill Clinton or George W. Bush school of admitting to being in the same room as people smoking pot (or snorting cocaine) but not daring to infer they might have dabbled in enjoyment of illicit drugs at any time. In Iowa, America's heartland, where they build baseball fields and wait for the players to come, the young and starry-eyed relate to Barack Obama. The young and starry-eyed Democrats, at least.

On the other side of the fence are the folks who turned out for Huckabee, a preacher who rose to be the Governor of Arkansas not because he won a full election, but because the Democratic Governor he succeeded had to resign, creating a truncated election cycle. Unlike California'a Arnold Schwarzenegger, who coasted into a second term after winning such a race, Huckabee did not seek re-election. But, recently he prayed and God told him if he put his name out there in the primary arena (alongside God's) - the voters would come. Short of getting Kevin Costner's andorsement, it was good enough to take Iowa in the winter.

So, with a perplexing outcome like that the pundits were at a loss to commit punditry about New Hampshire. How can you predict what will happen in the Granite state, home of Pendleton shirts and duck shoes, after a go around like you just had in Iowa? Obviously, you look to the pollsters to give you an indication. Hard to pontificate about the pulse of the American people if you can get a pollster to put his finfer on it.

Have you ever been called for one of those political polls? Have you ever been the subject of one of those exit polls at your polling place? Me, I've been voting since I managed to make the age deadline in November of 1980. Twenty-seven years now. That's seven presidential elections so far (unlike Parish Hilton, I only vote for President every four years). Not one exit poll. I didn't even get asked who I voted for after California's historic recall election in 2003, when we unseated a Governor a year after voting him in for re-election not because he'd done anything wrong or because tehre was the spectre of scandal - but because Karl Rove thought it would be a good idea to start pushing a little Republican muscle around the country. Hey, it got us Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor and so far so good on that front - so no complaints here. But, I do have to point out that it amazes me that a solid majority of Califonrians could elect a guy Governor in November of 2002 (and things weren't going so great at the time - the energy crisis wasn't really resolved, we were spending our budget surplus into a deficit, etc.), and then vote for someone else a year later. Britney Spears has at least one marriage that lasted longer than that. I'd hate to think our commitment to Democracy, to investing a little time in and standing by teh choices we make with our votes, is weaker than Britney's commitment to KFed.
But you know, the facts are what they are.

Back to Polls and Pundits. For months we've been hearing it's a horse race between Guiliani and Romney, with McCain a distant third and Huckabee, Thompson and the rest of teh guys really far down the pack. Fox News has been all about who is the real, true conservative, trying to spoon feed the masses their thoughts and beliefs. CNN, rarely watch it so couldn't tell you what Anderson Cooper was saying. MSNBC? Your choices are a self-aggrandizing philanderer, a Mormon, a former independent thinker now pandering to the Christian right, a walking Christian Jenny Craig ad, and that bald guy from "Law and Order". Sure, there may have been more finesse in the descriptions, but pretty much those were the messages between the lines. It wasn't even really that between the lines with Fox. It almost appeared to me as if they were pushing the preacher man so he could win a few states and take the Romeny money machine out so their boy Rudy could sprint to the finish, or at least until they could bring in the reserves (Bloomberg). As I look at it, they also put Obama at the front of the Democratic pack - to demoralize Hillary, their arch nemesis. All this talk of planted Clinton emails and internet traffic dissing Obama when no one knows who put out those not saying the pledge pictures, etc. Yeah, it looks a little fishy to me. What nightmares some of those guys at Fox must have been having lately looking at tanking Republican numbers (darn you, Ron Paul!) and having to entertain the idea that a Democrat might takethe White House. Horror of horrors - you've got a haircut trial attorney, a woman (Good graciousl did she actually cry?, please tell me that was a trick), a black man with a ferin sounding name, and a Hispanic. It's just to terrible to think about - so better to give as little air time as we can to these folks, unless they're fighting with each other (why can't they just show up at brothels like good conervatives?).

Nope the pundits gave a lot of air time to Hillary allegedly bashing Obama. Lots of time to her staff apology for the unsavory things that were said about the pot confession, etc. With Ann Coulter miraculously muzzled, there was no worry about John Edwards getting any airtime. The debates, for both parties were, you know, same old same old. So, suddenly we were hearing about Huckabee and how God had ordained him to run for president and he was the Christian choice. He even made disparaging remarks about Mitt Romney's religion (Good graciousl, two birds with one stone!). It didn't take a genius to figure out the Huckabee bump you might get in the heartland.

But, be careful what you wish for. If you plant ideas in people's heads they might grow into actual votes. The pundits panicked. The pollsters called out the dogs. Clearly neither of them understand that wry New Hampshire sense of humor. Ehhp. Ah, those historically 'independent voters' got out and voted. Lots of them. And the polls were saying they were getting out to vote for Hillary, not Barack. Oddly enough, they did say they were coming out to vote for John McCain - but that makes sense. Independent in New Hampshire often means Republican, and it just about never means very liberal Democrat. Besides, some of these folks have been socked in for lots of long winters. They may have finally cast their 2000 vote for McCain. Ehhp.

And now what do the pundits say, now that their hand tailored polls (If the election were held tomorrow and all of the other candidates were dead, would you vote for Barack Obama?"; "If John McCain were the last man standing, would oyu vote for John McCain?") turned out so wrong? Not, wow, we were wrong and clearly we do not have our finger on the pulse of the American people? Not, wow, maybe we shoudl start asking more straightforward questions with these polls (:If a train leaves Derry at 2:45, travelling at a speed of 45 miles an hour, ehhp, and it doesn't arrive in Merrimack until 8:55 the next day, would you vote for John McCain?"). Nope - it was the tears. The tears put her over the top. Damn, weak (post-menopausal and cranky) woman. Oh, and MCCain has had his day - it's tiem for the big boys to take the lead now. Clearly the people have spoken and they are confused, misinformed.

Or, in my assessment, what happened was the presumptive front-runner took her rightful place with the New Englanders who got out to vote (because there isn't even good cable at home, might as well go do something) so we could put aside all this talk of revolutionary change. And with everyone spouting the term "change", the wily New Englanders didn''t go out on any limbs (Ron Paul), but shook the tree just slightly by saying, at least McCain doesn't like torture and doesn't hear God talking to him all the time. In New England they go to church, ehhp, but mostly Episcopal and Presbyterian. They don't get tent revivals, especially not in the winter, so they tend not to vote for fiery preachers. Romney? Not so much. Guiliani? A little too flashy for our tastes. They like their Veteran's parade though. And someone with a few years on him. McCain's the guy.

Now, I have no idea how the next few primaries are going to go. I don't have my finger on the pulse of America either. I do think the Dems are really down to a two person race, that John Edwards will learn the lesson of Walter Mondale BEFORE getting a doomed nomination. I have no idea who will ultimately get nominated, but my money is on the winner. On the Republican side I could bluff and say I know whose weaknesses are showing. It's only been two prmiaries. Two small states with not exactly a boat load of delgates. I think most of the pack has the financial wherewithawal to hang in at least until Nevada. But, I will predict this, if Guiliani finishes third or lower two more times - he's out of teh race (and Bloomberg may swoop in) - and Thompson (my personal favorite, I will admit it) seems to already be only phoning it in. I think it is indeed John McCain's time to shine if he wants to shine. If he positions himself more toward the middle now, giving up on trying to out Christian Right preachers and teetotallers, he may outlast Romney and Huckabee.

Again, this is all just off the top of my head. I haven't looked at polling (which is meaningless), In fact, the last few times I've answered internet polls I have lied - just picked any name to vex the pollsters. These pundits who tell me how to think and then tell me they know what I'm thinking and what my recent voting behavior means (basically letting me out of the process altogether) need to take a rest. They are gumming up the machinery of Democracy. Unlike me, who says ' here's how I see it' and 'these are my thoughts' - they pretend to KNOW, often without thinking. Now would be a good time to turn off TV sets (except maybe to catch the Daily Show mocking all the pundits, that can make you laugh when it doesn't make you want to cry) and not to look at polls. Polls polarize. When politicians start believing the polls they can forget to act - waiting for the next poll to come out to determine whether or not such an action will affect their polling. So, I think it's bad enough that polls have caused such terrible inaction (or unthinking action) by office holders, we shoudln't' start letting polls affect the way we actually vote. We are the inputs to the polls - not the products of them. It's outrageous to me that pollsters can ask you a skewed question at 6 a.m. on voting day and spin the answers to those polls to try to influence the way you actually cast your vote by 7 p.m. Of course they need the pundits to spin the message all day. You hate Rudy. You love Rudy. You hate Hillary. You love Hillary. You want to know who Jesus would vote for (historically there is no record of Jesus ever voting, by the way, but He famously acknowledged the civil duty to pay taxes). You like McCain, you hate McCain. The Huckabee bump was an anomaly, or it was a sign of the times. Obama has momentum, or he is flagging. Just tell the pollsters what it is you want to hear and they will play it for you.

So, bottom line. You don't have to buy into a word I've said. I'm just looking at a landscape and interpreting it from my own worldview and perspective. But, if oyu believe in Democracy and would like to see it preserved, forget the polls and forget the pundits and listen to candidates, ask questions, seek sansers, and vote according to what matters to you. In a Democracy no one casts your vote but you. Remember that.