You Agree With Me. Don't You!
When I run polls, I find that people agree with my positions. My polls usually consist of one question: "Would you rather support my policy or get poked in the eye with a stick?" Research shows, support levels for my policies are amazingly high.
Okay, that's a little extreme, but it is a constant source of amusement how people who know better run polls just about that biased.
A poll was recently published, showing that Utahns don't favor a tax cut. But, as I noticed, and as Gazelem dissects, the question wasn't exactly neutral. It asks whether Utahns favor a tax cut or funding state "needs." Right there, you've imposed a value on the question. If it's a "need," we better fund it. Maybe the people being sampled would have responded differently, if they had been asked a more neutral question of choosing between tax cuts or funding other state programs.
But, maybe that's just my opinion. I'm curious where you stand on the issue of polling. So, I ask, "Would you rather have neutral polling questions or get poked in the eye with a stick?"
Okay, that's a little extreme, but it is a constant source of amusement how people who know better run polls just about that biased.
A poll was recently published, showing that Utahns don't favor a tax cut. But, as I noticed, and as Gazelem dissects, the question wasn't exactly neutral. It asks whether Utahns favor a tax cut or funding state "needs." Right there, you've imposed a value on the question. If it's a "need," we better fund it. Maybe the people being sampled would have responded differently, if they had been asked a more neutral question of choosing between tax cuts or funding other state programs.
But, maybe that's just my opinion. I'm curious where you stand on the issue of polling. So, I ask, "Would you rather have neutral polling questions or get poked in the eye with a stick?"
posted by steve u. at 6/20/2005
Subscribe
4 Comments:
Appearently, most Americans vote for the eye poking, because they seem to believe this stuff.
I agree with you Steve, I think it's terribly biased. I have the same impatience for often quoted research studies. As my professor said in the research class I took in college, "You can prove ANYTHING with research." It just depends on how you set it up and spin it. I'm afraid too many people equate conclusions drawn from research with fact without questioning the methods or particulars.
I agree with Erin. Years ago my statistics professor admonished us never to believe any statistic until you knew its underlying methodology because you can design a study to achieve just about any statistic you want.
On the tax cut vs. govt. needs thing, to hijack John 12:8 -- for the government "needs" always ye have with you, but the surplus ye have not always. Returning the money to the taxpayers should be option #1.
It's a fascinating question you pose. When considering the current administration, if not in total agreement, then the eye-poke is inevitable. The word of the day is obstructionist...not polite, but effective. It would be more fascinating if, rather than name-calling, those who pose theory (policy) actually listened to the responses with an open mind. I mean, could you imagine if the President actually heard the "majority" of the people when they (via multiple polls) said no private accounts, get out of Iraq, gas prices are too high, the economy is floundering, stop changing the rules mid-stream, leave judges alone, stay out of my personal decisions, answer questions regarding the Downing Street Minutes, stop linking Al-Qaeda with Iraq, give up the WMD balogna, etc.
Your posters' are smart...statistics can be made to mean many things. "BUT" is every poll taken biased against Bush until he finds the one that suits him. Then suddenly the poll is correct. We can't be blinded by the one-sidedness of the situation...or maybe we can if our eyes have been poked out!!
Doc
<< Home