I think polls should be outlawed completely

[boolean]

I've noticed a disturbing thing every time an election rolls around, whether it be presidential, primary, midterm, whatever. No matter how media savvy you think you are, you are being influenced by the polls. It doesn't matter if it's a newspaper or TV or radio, or yes, even the Internet. The information polls give you are making you choose who to vote for, whether you think it's conscious or not. Advertising works in the same way. No matter how "smart" you think you are, when you see a commercial, you are influenced to buy the product. Maybe not right away, but sometime in the future you buy it because you saw the commercial.

Face it, if advertising didn't work, it wouldn't exist. It does work and that's why corporations spend billions of dollars on them. You might think you're way too smart for that. "Hell", you say, "only suckers fall for that crap. Not ME!" Well then tell me, smarty pants, why you voted for who you voted for back in the Democratic primary. This post picks up on my earlier post about Kucinich looking like an elf.

How many of you out there agree with Kucinich's policies pretty much 99%, but didn't vote for him? What was your reason? Because he can't win. But why did you feel that way? Because of his looks? Because other candidates had more to offer? Because he didn't have the poll numbers? The same can be said about Al Sharpton. Was it because he's black? Because he's crazy? Because he didn't have the poll numbers?

And what about Dean! He had the poll numbers. He was leading. Then he did the scream and the media went nuts with it and all of a sudden, Kerry was the favorite. Now ask yourselves, people who would have voted for Dean but switched to Kerry: WHY did you do that? Did you actually care about the scream? Did you actually think it made him look like a crazy man? Or did you switch your vote because you saw his poll numbers falling?

Polls influence your vote. "He has no chance of winning, why bother throwing away your vote", is what you say. All of a sudden, the policy doesn't matter. Just whether or not he's leading in the polls makes the difference.

If polls were illegal, people would have no idea who's winning before the actual vote. They would choose their candidate based on the merits of the candidate, not whether or not he "has a chance in hell". Elections would be fair and the best man/woman would win. (Assuming of course that the votes are actually counted. That's a different subject entirely!)

I propose that polls be made illegal. NO MORE POLLING OF ANY KIND. Force the media to talk about the policies of each candidate instead of who's winning or who's losing. I'm not against polls about specific topics, such as abortion or gun control or approval ratings. (Approval ratings indicate the publics satisfaction with the current person in power. They're not the same as the speculative polls that happen before someone is even elected and hasn't really done anything). But polls about who is winning or losing an election campaign need to be scraped completely. They're influencing you whether you like it or not.

[European Socialist]

1. We'll need those polls in Nov. to measure vote stolen by the Pukes.

[City Lights]

2. Exactly.

Without polls we'd have no way of knowing which races the pukes stole.

[AndyA]

3. Like it matters all that much anyway. What's going to happen?

The Repukes certainly haven't/aren't going to say, "Oops, you caught us. Bush really didn't win either time, here, we'll let Gore/Kerry take The White House now. Sorry."

One of these days, we're going to have to have a candidate with the balls to say, "I don't believe you won the election. I think fraud has been involved, and I demand a recount and/or a re-vote." Until then, it doesn't really matter. Someone is going to have to make a big stink about it to draw attention to how serious this election fraud truly is, and we haven't had a candidate do that yet.

And I don't mean a little stink, I mean a big one. On TV, radio, newspapers, talk shows, screaming bloody murder until people start paying attention.

[City Lights]

12. Gore made what I think was a big stink in 2000 and the USSC

sided with the chimp. Democracy in the US died on 12-12-2000, IMHO. It's hard to make progress when the USSC doesn't believe it's necessary to count every vote that can be counted.

What the pukes need is to have an election stolen out from under them. They'd make a stink like we've never seen and that would be the end of unverified voting.

[AndyA]

13. I've felt for a long time that wrong is wrong, and there are no exceptions

to that fact. However, I'm seriously leaning toward thinking the Dems may very well have to fight fire with fire and steal the November elections. The struggle between the two parties to take the election from the other may be all it takes to expose what's been going on.

We're not on an even playing field, so I think the Dems just may need to take whatever steps are necessary to even out the field.

[LynzM]

4. A very interesting point

And I think, potentially very valid, as well.

How about exit polling only? That way, you get around the "no way to know who really should have won" bit. It's used all over the world as a reliable indicator of fraud.

[KurtNYC]

5. Polls are more accurate than the official vote count

you say yourself: "If polls were illegal, people would have no idea who's winning before the actual vote." To which I would add: they would have no idea who won the vote either.

[sgxnk]

6. free speech

polls are a form of speech

sure, they influence opinion

here's a little tip...

POLITICAL SPEECH IS SUPPOSED TO INFLUENCE OPINION

i see this as yet another example of a du'er (i have seen this several times in a few days) blatantly wanting to abandon the 1st amendment as soon as some aspect of free speech makes them uncomfortable

get real.

free speech matter

abandoning the constitution is no more enamoring from the left, than it is from the right

[boolean]

7. bullshit

This has more to do with the corporate media influencing opinion. Why not freely speak about the actual policies of the candidates instead of which one is "winning" in the polls?

[sgxnk]

8. the corporate media

has EVERY RIGHT to influence opinion

so does george soros

so does noam chomsky

so does michael savage

so does michael moore

so does david duke

so does ann coulter

so does bell hooks

so does bill gates

so do you

so do i

again, all you are saying is that you don't extend the right of free speech to those that you disagree with

iow, you have no respect for the 1st amendment

your attitude is very animal farm'esque. apparently, in your world, some are more equal than others

that, my friend, is bullsh*t as you say. unconstitutional, unamerican, anti-freedom bullsh*t.

you should be ashamed

the 1st amendment matters

[boolean]

10. NO NO NO NO NO

An individual has the right to influence opinion. The media is supposed to be a check on the power structure by providing the masses with the truth, not with biased political spin.

[sgxnk]

11. spare me

first of all, the NEWS is supposed to be unbiased.

the media is not. the media includes opinion journalism, movies, teevee, etc.

second of all, there is no way in reality the news can or ever will be unbiased. it is a practical impossibility. you can't observe and report ANYTHING without incorporating bias

this is all tangential

the 1st amendment was NOT just designed to protect individuals.

it applies to news outlets (duh), corporations, etc.

if you don't extent the first amendment to these entities, than you simply are saying you don't believe in the 1st amendment, as i stated.

that is sad

if you can't extent first amendment protections to those you disagree with, whether they are individual citizens (soros, coulter, chomsky, etc.), corporations, churches, etc. than you do not deserve first amendment protections yourself

i defend EVERYBODY's right to free speech

and who is the arbiter of what the "truth" is? it is not THE MEDIA. it is THE PEOPLE. and they vote THEIR interpretation of the truth.

that is the point of the 1st amendment. the PEOPLE determine the truth. the media is merely a player in the debate

[karynnj]

9. Freedom of speech

Polls exist because people want to read the results, so newspapers and broadcast media commission them.

Your 2004 example is very off-base. Dean's scream was after Kerry got more than twice as many votes in Iowa as he did. Dean was considered the front runner, before a single vote was cast , because of positive media in late summer and early fall, 2003 and POLLS.

Kerry won Iowa by winning over people who then voted in the caucuses. If anything, Kerry was hurt by the media and the early polls when no one was really listening in 2003. It is dangerous to hypothesize based on yourself, but I know that in 2003, Kerry and Dean were the only choices that interested me and my fear was that they could split the same segment of primary voters, leading to one of he candidates I was completely unexcited about winning the nomination. I was happy when Dean appeared to emerge as the leader - I could more than live with that - I was happy. As it appeared that Dean had a good chance and Kerry was polling near Sharpton - had I been polled in Dec 2003, I would have said Dean - though Kerry was the one I slightly favored.

Dean's lead was based ONLY on these polls - that you now denigrate. From both Paul Alexander's book, "The Candidate" and Walter Shapiro's book, Kerry, his family and his campaign worked extremely hard and campaigned very very well in Iowa. The media largely ignored him. In January, the media did cover what may have been one of the most dramatic campaign moments ever.

Eric Rassman, a Republican ex-policeman saw Brinkley's book on Kerry in Vietnam - he was interested because he was the marine saved by Kerry. Brinkley had not been able to locate him because the Navy records misspelled his name. He called Kerry's campaign and volunteered to help, mentioning that that Kerry saved his life. Luckily for Kerry, the staffer realized that this was big and passed the message to headquarters and they immediately arranged for him to come to a Kerry event in Iowa. On cable, their reunion was very moving - as was Kerry saying that "anyone would have done it." This clip was played because it was real and almost perfect TV. Meanwhile, the Dean event broadcast at the same time had a red-faced Dean telling a 70 plus year old hecler to "sit down. Unfortunate timing for Dean - but it happened and it likely moved people from Dean and people to Kerry.

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. 4 out of 5 dentists would disagree with you.

[wyldwolf]

15. unless they say what you want them to say... right?

[mike923]

16. Any poll can say what you want it to say.

If a poll, no matter how flimsy it is, gives you hope. It's better than nothing.