I think not. Because polls only tell you what’s popular. And I’ll give you my opinion about why polls are sometimes stupid below the foldy area.
I’ll begin by saying something nice about polls. Polls are usually pretty good about telling you how voters will vote (except for Rasmussen). As election day gets closer and closer, the polls generally become more accurate at predicting what will happen.
In addition, if a certain candidate says something really stupid (or something really smart) or if a scandal erupts, you can see pretty quickly how the voters have reacted. Political donations can be affected by polls – if a candidate is in a tight race, donors will be more likely to help that candidate.
In the months before the 2008 election, I compulsively/obsessively checked the polls every day. I had bookmarked six or seven websites – most of them with lovely maps – that showed which states were solid red (for McCain), solid blue (for Obama), or various other colors that indicated that a state was leaning one way or another. Every day I checked the current status of Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, and several other states. I remember that, for a week or so, North Dakota and Montana seemed to be leaning towards Obama.
But a lot of polls are just old-fashioned bullshit. Some polls suck. My rant begins now.
Self-Selected Polls Are Bullshit
A good scientific poll chooses people at random from a base of average people. If people can choose whether or not they’re included in the poll, then the poll isn’t scientific. For example:
Suppose Fox News says, "We’d like to know what you think. Call 1-800-555-1212 and press 1 if you think an anchor baby born to illegal immigrants shouldn’t get automatic citizenship. Press 2 if you think they should. If you’re against anchor babies, press 1. If you’re for them, press 2."
Surprise! Fox News announces later that 90% (or whatever the number is) are against anchor babies. They’ll probably say something like, "this is not a scientific poll," but they’ll also probably say something like "wow, an overwhelming number of people voted against anchor babies."
There are four things wrong with this "Fox News poll" (which really isn’t a poll):
- Polls should pick people at random, so the results will be representative of reality. A self-selected poll (where people choose to participate) isn’t random and shouldn’t count as a poll.
- The audience of Fox News tends to be right wing, so that skews the results.
- In TV polls and internet polls, people who are very passionate about an issue can vote more than once. Which is absolutely wrong.
- It’s a push poll. They worded it in a way to get a certain result.
And that means the results are 100% crap.
And it’s not just Fox News. Ed Schultz sometimes does unscientific self-selected polls on his show or his website. Daily Kos diarists sometimes include polls at the end of a diary. These polls are also unscientific.
What’s kind of funny is that once in a while someone writes a DKos diary that says "71% of DKos members are anti-Semitic!" because somebody wrote a diary and 22 out of 31 people clicked on one of the options. It was a self-selected poll. It was a tiny number of DKos members. But suddenly someone thinks that 71% of Kossacks are anti-Semitic and has to bloviate and spew about it.
I’ve written 90 diaries on Daily Kos – this is my 91st – and I’ve never ever included a poll in my diaries because I know that the number of votes for this or that isn’t really representative. If it’s not a scientific poll, I don’t care.
Polls About Science Are Bullshit
When Galileo imagined that the Earth moved around the Sun, did he take a poll of other astronomers? When Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species," did he take a poll of botanists? When Alfred Wegener hypothesized that continental plates moved around and formed mountains, did he do a poll? When Einstein did a gedanken experiment about riding on a beam of light, did he take a poll?
No, no, no, and no. In fact, all four of those scientists came up with theories that introduced new ways of thinking about reality. Science is based in reality.
And yet science has been subjected to numerous polls. Do people believe in the big bang theory? Do people believe in evolution? Do people believe in anthropogenic global climate change? Do people believe that thinking positive thoughts will help you avoid cancer? Do people believe that homeopathic water will magically cure any disease? Opinions of non-scientists are not science.
Aaaargh! It’s fucking science. Science gave us the atomic bomb. Science discovered that vitamin C cures scurvy. Science gave us electricity and a zillion other things. Does anyone do polls about questions like "Do you believe in nuclear fission? Or vitamin C? Or electricity?" You'd be a fool to say that you don't believe in them.
It’s Bullshit To Say Laws Should Follow The Poll Numbers
I started thinking about this topic because of this DKos diary: 73% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage 1 year after Loving v. Virginia.
In 1967, the Supreme Court said (in Loving v. Virginia) that states couldn’t pass laws against miscegenation. In other words, they said it was legal for black people to marry white people (because marriage was a basic right). The Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional for a state to forbid the marriage of a black person and a white person. A poll taken a year after the SCOTUS ruling said that 73% of Americans believed that blacks and whites shouldn’t marry. Does that mean the Supreme Court did the wrong thing? Absolutely not. And the number of racists who opposed interracial marriages gradually went down over the last 50 years. Nowadays it seems like a fairly silly question.
And here’s another DKos diary: CNN: Marriage equality over 50% in US for the first time!. In this case, the diarist reported that CNN did a poll:
Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?
Yes: 52%
No: 46%
No opinion: 2%
Fuck the polls. I don’t care what the polls say about gays getting married. Here’s my point of view: GLBT partners should have the right to get married because it’s the right thing to do. It’s supported by the Constitution. It’s a question of morality. I don’t care what the polls say. I don’t care if only five states currently allow GLBT marriages (and 45 don’t). Yes, I’m happy that 52% of Americans are in favor of gays getting married, but the polls are irrelevant. Gay people should be allowed to get married in every state. We’re a nation of laws, not a nation of opinions.
Polls About Reality Are Bullshit
Every once in a while I’ll see a poll that says people believe in angels or UFOs. Or they believe vaccinations cause autism. Or maybe people believe the Bible is the literal word of God. Or Babe Ruth was the best baseball player of all time, but Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were right up there. Or maybe there’s a poll that says "Casablanca" is the best movie ever made. And I ask, "Who cares what you think?"
If 52% (a majority) of Americans believed that angels existed in the year 2000, but only 48% believe in angels in 2010, does that mean angels existed ten years ago, but they don’t exist now?
Opinions can change.
Obama’s Numbers Are Tanking!
This is a right-wing meme that drives me nuts. Obama is unpopular! He’s obviously doing something wrong! Everybody hates him!
Bullshit.
I don’t have a link, but I recently read a diary that showed that Obama’s numbers are approximately the same as Ronald Reagan’s after Reagan had been in office for 18 months. And Reagan got re-elected. I’ll be worried about Obama’s numbers if people hate him in the year 2012. Personally, I’m pretty happy with him. He’s not perfect and he’s made a lot of mistakes.
It’s A Numbers Thing
I love numbers. If you asked me to compare Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, and you gave me a time machine to bring one of them to the year 2010 to play for the Seattle Mariners, I’d study the statistics and make a choice.
I know a lot of people who worship numbers. Numbers sound vaguely scientific or vaguely statistical. And money is measured by numbers. But voting by numbers is a mistake. Legislators should take a stand and vote with their heart.
I think politicians should think about issues and make a decision that makes sense and is the right thing to do. But sometimes they look at who donated the most money (numbers) or what the polls say (also numbers).
I suppose I could keep rambling, but that’s the end of this rant.
Or maybe it's not...
Update/Addendum/Explanation
Sometimes you write something and 24 hours later, you think, "In retrospect, what I should have said was this..."
In this diary, the point I was aiming at was that sometimes polls are insignificant and can be ignored. Sometimes polls are silly or even ridiculous.
For example, I think gays should be able to get married – because it’s a fundamental right. Rights are rights; they shouldn’t be subject to votes or to polling.
Likewise, evolution and anthropogenic climate change are scientific facts (and by "fact" I mean there’s near-unanimous agreement among scientists). Polling non-scientists about science seems pretty silly to me.
Also, it bugs me when people get excited about Obama’s "weekly favorable ratings" in the year 2010. The next Presidential election is over two years away – I won’t worry about his favorables until about six months before the election. Maybe his favorables go up 2 points one week and then go down 2 points the next, which is within the margin of error. So, after two weeks, he’s back where he started. But do we need to talk about it every frigging week?
And the headline? I thought about calling this something like, "Sometimes I Ignore Polls" and then I thought, "No, I should give it a snappy headline with Galileo, Jefferson, and Gandhi! That will get people to read it!"
The headline gave some people the false impression that I wanted to talk about Galileo, Jefferson, and Gandhi. All very fine fellows, to be sure, but I wanted to talk about polls. In retrospect, I should have kept my original headline.
So I apologize for not being a better writer. I had several different trains of thought but I didn’t tie together the loose threads. And my headline was a mistake – it seemed to invite people to argue with me over something I didn’t really want to talk about.