Phone Poll

First, I want to wish as happy a birthday as anyone ever had to aurora_lamour.

Now back to our show.

The phone rang this evening. It was a pollster, a pleasant-sounding woman. She assured me up front that they were not selling anything - "That's good", I answered - and just wanted to ask some questions to the youngest over-18 male in the house. That was me. And best of all, it was a political poll!

Now, I have enough of a background in politics to enjoy guessing who commissioned the poll. But this was a most professionally designed one. It was surprisingly long; I'd guess I was on the phone for at least ten minutes. And I was answering as quickly as I could since I know that some telephone workers are paid by results, not by time.

As always when I deal with polls (of any sort), I found myself bothered by the limitations of the available answers. Options like "Yes/No" and "Very much/somewhat/rarely/not at all" often do not let me express my actual opinion. In a lot of cases, my answer would very much depend on having more details. For example, the issue of abortion. Do I consider it important? A fanatic pro-lifer might say yes, because they want it outlawed. But a fanatic pro-choicer might also quite reasonably say yes, because they want the right to an abortion protected. The problem is that in this case they didn't say what "Abortion" meant.

Another tough one: do I trust the Democrats to fix the nation's problems more than the Republicans? Of course I do, but only comparatively - and I'd trust some a hell of a lot LESS than others. For example, I couldn't trust Joe Lieberman or Hilary Clinton much less than I already do. But there weren't too many questions about specific candidates.

The interesting thing was that there were quite a few questions about a national unity ticket - one made up of a Democrat and a Republican. Unfortunately there was no real option for my to express my real opinion, which was that while it was a nice and even appealing idea in abstract, there were two things wrong: one, I know of no Republican of national prominence who has any credibility whatsoever any more. Sorry, but if you're still affiliated with that party after they've created the world's largest deficit, Iraq, the wholesale assault on the Bill of Rights and our entire system of government, then you simply have NO legitimate way to stand for national office, as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm including people like John McCain and the so-called "liberal" Northeastern Republican senators. At the very least they stood aside and quietly watched as their party committed treason, and since they all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, that leaves them no excuse. Unless they want to claim stupidity, of course. But "I didn't know what was happening" is not an explanation I'll accept in this case.

The second thing that's wrong with the idea of a unity ticket is that it would almost certainly act as a spoiler for the Democratic ticket, and Ralph Nader gave everyone a manifest lesson in just how damaging that could be to the country. So even if the Democratic ticket were Clinton and Lieberman...well, no. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for those two, and quite possibly not either of them. But if I lived in a state where the outcome was in doubt, I have to admit: I'd hold my nose and vote for them, for Sebastian's sake if for no other reason.

So a unity ticket would only serve as a way to try to get the Democratic Party establishment (not Howard Dean, since I think he's doing a good job) to wake up and start fighting. And I'd never vote for them if they seemed in any way to jeopardize the chances of the Democratic candidates. But the poll wasn't designed to allow me to express that opinion, so all they'll be able to take away from my answers is the idea that I'm not hostile to the unity ticket idea - a half-truth at best.

Whew! It's late. Time to sleep. Good night!

Phone Poll

First, I want to wish as happy a birthday as anyone ever had to aurora_lamour.

Now back to our show.

The phone rang this evening. It was a pollster, a pleasant-sounding woman. She assured me up front that they were not selling anything - "That's good", I answered - and just wanted to ask some questions to the youngest over-18 male in the house. That was me. And best of all, it was a political poll!

Now, I have enough of a background in politics to enjoy guessing who commissioned the poll. But this was a most professionally designed one. It was surprisingly long; I'd guess I was on the phone for at least ten minutes. And I was answering as quickly as I could since I know that some telephone workers are paid by results, not by time.

As always when I deal with polls (of any sort), I found myself bothered by the limitations of the available answers. Options like "Yes/No" and "Very much/somewhat/rarely/not at all" often do not let me express my actual opinion. In a lot of cases, my answer would very much depend on having more details. For example, the issue of abortion. Do I consider it important? A fanatic pro-lifer might say yes, because they want it outlawed. But a fanatic pro-choicer might also quite reasonably say yes, because they want the right to an abortion protected. The problem is that in this case they didn't say what "Abortion" meant.

Another tough one: do I trust the Democrats to fix the nation's problems more than the Republicans? Of course I do, but only comparatively - and I'd trust some a hell of a lot LESS than others. For example, I couldn't trust Joe Lieberman or Hilary Clinton much less than I already do. But there weren't too many questions about specific candidates.

The interesting thing was that there were quite a few questions about a national unity ticket - one made up of a Democrat and a Republican. Unfortunately there was no real option for my to express my real opinion, which was that while it was a nice and even appealing idea in abstract, there were two things wrong: one, I know of no Republican of national prominence who has any credibility whatsoever any more. Sorry, but if you're still affiliated with that party after they've created the world's largest deficit, Iraq, the wholesale assault on the Bill of Rights and our entire system of government, then you simply have NO legitimate way to stand for national office, as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm including people like John McCain and the so-called "liberal" Northeastern Republican senators. At the very least they stood aside and quietly watched as their party committed treason, and since they all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, that leaves them no excuse. Unless they want to claim stupidity, of course. But "I didn't know what was happening" is not an explanation I'll accept in this case.

The second thing that's wrong with the idea of a unity ticket is that it would almost certainly act as a spoiler for the Democratic ticket, and Ralph Nader gave everyone a manifest lesson in just how damaging that could be to the country. So even if the Democratic ticket were Clinton and Lieberman...well, no. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for those two, and quite possibly not either of them. But if I lived in a state where the outcome was in doubt, I have to admit: I'd hold my nose and vote for them, for Sebastian's sake if for no other reason.

So a unity ticket would only serve as a way to try to get the Democratic Party establishment (not Howard Dean, since I think he's doing a good job) to wake up and start fighting. And I'd never vote for them if they seemed in any way to jeopardize the chances of the Democratic candidates. But the poll wasn't designed to allow me to express that opinion, so all they'll be able to take away from my answers is the idea that I'm not hostile to the unity ticket idea - a half-truth at best.

Whew! It's late. Time to sleep. Good night!