Why Is This News?
CNN has taken a poll that states Bush would lose an election to a Democratic challenger if one were held this year. Besides being totally irrelevant, this poll suffers from one gigantic flaw. You can't have an election consisting of a person vs. an ideology. It isn't a logical comparison, it is a referendum on Bush, and with approval ratings well under 50%, it makes sense that he would lose. If we were to flip the poll question around and run any Democratic against a nameless, faceless Republican challenger, it is fairly obvious the challenger would win. Regardless of the fact that the Republican base is considerably larger (explained in Politics and Polarization), without a specific alternative, the poll becomes entirely subjective as to what people would regard as the virtues of the challenger.
Going back to the 2004 election, George Bush didn't win on a calculated matchup of political values, he won because John Kerry was a complete douchebag. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't vote because I identify strongly with one of the candidates, I vote because in essence to pick the lesser of two evils. Like the election for mascot on South Park, I chose Turd Sandwich over Giant Douche. Would I vote for the Democratic challenger over Bush? Not likely, because when I hear Democrat I think of all the major flaws associated with a Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer, HRC, or other mainstream weasel-crat. However, if I changed my a priori conception of Democrat to match up more closely with a CharlesPierce, then the choice becomes tougher. Without some kind of definitive characteristics for the challenger, every single person polled is basically answering a different question once they read in their own personal beliefs associated with the label "Democrat", so I would say the question is entirely worthless.
On a different note, I got wicked drunk with a PGA tour player last night and argued about marginal tax rates on the rich. It totally kicked ass. I even got a job offer to drive his RV around next year from tour event to tour event, and I'm actually considering it...
Going back to the 2004 election, George Bush didn't win on a calculated matchup of political values, he won because John Kerry was a complete douchebag. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't vote because I identify strongly with one of the candidates, I vote because in essence to pick the lesser of two evils. Like the election for mascot on South Park, I chose Turd Sandwich over Giant Douche. Would I vote for the Democratic challenger over Bush? Not likely, because when I hear Democrat I think of all the major flaws associated with a Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer, HRC, or other mainstream weasel-crat. However, if I changed my a priori conception of Democrat to match up more closely with a CharlesPierce, then the choice becomes tougher. Without some kind of definitive characteristics for the challenger, every single person polled is basically answering a different question once they read in their own personal beliefs associated with the label "Democrat", so I would say the question is entirely worthless.
On a different note, I got wicked drunk with a PGA tour player last night and argued about marginal tax rates on the rich. It totally kicked ass. I even got a job offer to drive his RV around next year from tour event to tour event, and I'm actually considering it...
4 Comments:
excellent insight. it's asking you to vote for either 1 person or any 1 of a few hundred people, and that's just ridiculous. Don't drive the RV, unless it can turn into a plane and a submarine, and then definitely do it.
it can't turn into a plane or a submarine... but it could turn into a job caddying on the tour, and it may even satisfy my wanderlust...
well, I guess 1 year can't hurt anything, especially if some serious travel is involevd.
I agree--stupid poll, irrelevant question, meaningless yield. Again, in the quest for news, the media will try to make something out of nothing. Here's every headline from the past 4 weeks:
"With his base imploding, his plans stagnating, his Supreme Court nominee a reject, and the Iraq war not being totally sweet, Bush's poll numbers slipped."
Big freaking deal. I have 4 words for everyone (or 3, depending on how you count numbers): 55 Republican senators.
Post a Comment
<< Home