Worthless poll results
12:00 AM, Tuesday, August 27 2002 | 261 views | 0 0 comments | 1 1 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Save us from polls.

If we ever see another poll, it'll be too soon.

How can anyone put any stock in these bought-and-paid-for gauges of public interest? You know the kind. A pollster comes across an unsuspecting victim, er, polling candidate, and the questions flow.

1. Which of the following most accurately describes your feeling about any potential military action in Iraq?

A. Nuke 'em.

B. Nuke 'em twice.

C. Nuke them and China.

D. I believe that any military action in Iraq should only follow a thoughtful review of the potential consequences and ramifications not only in Iraq but in the Mideast as well.

Strangely, a majority of people would choose D, thus proving the pollster's contention all along - people don't support military action in Iraq.

Or how about those political polls?

1. You are not going to vote for Candidate Whoever because:

A. He's a liar and a thief.

B. He beats his children regularly with small chains.

C. That thing we heard about with his former secretary, Mrs. Candidate Whoever.

D. Isn't he a communist?

The only thing worse than the polls themselves are the articles generated from their results. Depending on the disposition of the author, statistical data from a poll can mean black, white or just about any shade of gray.

A poll over the weekend charted Arkansans' thoughts about Bill Clinton. The main question - how did he do in office? - had four responses - very good, good, fair, poor.

Wouldn't it seem that a "fair" rating would be somewhat middle-of-the-road? "Fair" would seem to point to a decent job, nothing outstanding, but OK, right?

Nope. Not according to the person writing the article on the results. The article lumped the "fair" responses in with the "poor" responses, generally lowering Clinton's rating.

Coincidence? Doubtful. Just another example of a worthless poll.

- Rick Fahr
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet