Skip to content

About those polls.

September 28, 2016

A couple of days out from the debate, and everyone has their own personal scorecard.

The mainstream media and of course the Democrats, gave the trophy to Hillary Clinton. The online community apparently called it for Donald Trump in a landslide.

The so-called legitimate scientific polls won’t come out with full results until later this week, or even the first of next week.

The only poll that counts is the one to be tallied on November 8, but in the meantime, why so many large discrepancies?

In one sense, it’s the people vs. the establishment.

There is a certain amount of truth in the criticism that real-time online polling is inevitably slanted.

The event is fresh in the mind of the responders and reactions are likely to be vastly more personal in the moment than after a few days of reflection.

And of course, the questions are designed to be emotional triggers. If the questions aren’t balanced in favor of logic, the results won’t be balanced either.

That’s not to say that professional polling isn’t slanted. The charges and counter-charges about that will linger well beyond this election.

Sometimes though, your gut is more trustworthy than your brain. Look at disasters. How many times do you hear of people who said they avoided being drowned or burned or being in a terrible wreck because their gut told them not to be in that place at that particular time?

Take the little tête-à-tête’ chronicled here in yesterday’s post.

The two British vacationers, who represented the closest thing to unbiased observers available at the time, logically concluded that Hillary Clinton would win because of her network of contacts spanning well over thirty years.

Yet in almost the same breath, they cast their hypothetical vote for Donald Trump.

Not noted in that piece was that they said they weren’t all that familiar with either candidate. Of course they had heard of them, but as far as having closely followed their careers, the two candidates aren’t exactly commanding the same in-depth interest in Britain as did the Beatles or Brexit.

That hypothetical vote was a classic example of heart vs. head. Trump somehow connected with them in a way that Clinton never did at any time during the debate.

A little closer to home, many people find Mrs. Clinton’s never-ending cascade of disparaging, disdainful and even hateful remarks about this country and all but a particular segment of its people as being inherently racist, to be a disqualifier to hold the highest office in the land.

What’s the old saying about it takes one to know one?

You can interpret the polls any way that suits you.

Just remember that 41 days from now, you aren’t voting to validate a poll.

From → op-ed

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: