|
The Value of Polling Data
Posted 10-28-2002
Our country has become obsessed with polling data. Not only is it a way
of identifying winners before the election takes place, but many political
leaders use it as a way of shaping their own agenda when governing.
Recently, it has been taken to a new level of absurdity with "hypothetical"
polls.
Polls by their very nature
ARE hypothetical. "If the election were held today, whom would you vote
for?" That question supposes the person being polled would, at that moment,
actually vote. There is a certain scientific basis because those polled are
typically people with a history of voting. But what value do polls hold that
match up a candidate against a person who isn't even running. The recent
hypothetical poll matching Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ed Rendell
against current Governor Mark Schweiker, who isn't even running, is
absolutely ridiculous.
Just what purpose does this
serve? It seems the only reason to do such polling would be to denigrate
Rendell's commanding lead over the actual candidate, Mike Fisher. What other
reason can there be? What is most amusing about the results is that
Schweiker's popularity is based solely on his television exposure during the
Quecreek Mine rescue. I would bet that if that same poll had been run before
the rescue, Schweiker would not have received such a positive response.
Before that event, he was relatively obscure and was simply serving out the
remainder of Tom Ridge's term as governor, with no aspirations to actually
run for the office.
Another ridiculous
hypothetical poll shown recently is the one asking Americans if Senator
Hillary Clinton should run for president. She has made it clear she would
not run in 2004 and would serve her entire six-year term as senator from New
York. But apparently some polling outfit has not gotten its pound of flesh
from the Clintons yet and has to try to discredit her stature. Irrespective
of that poll, the people of New York spoke loudly in 2000 when they voted
for her as their senator.
For a public sector that has
become increasingly dependent on focus groups to govern, hypothetical polls
allow us to move further into a less substantive world. Former New York City
Mayor Rudy Guiliani, who was quite unpopular before the September 11
attacks, and Schweiker, who was basically unknown before the Quecreek Mine
rescue, can turn their political fortunes around by simply being in front of
cameras during a crisis. Does anyone think other elected leaders wouldn't do
the same if such events occurred on their watch?
My real concern is that we
have a public influenced more by sensationalism than substance. Substantive
issues like the economy, health care, and the environment take a back seat
to disaster and tragedy. I am certainly not minimizing the significance of
September 11 or Quecreek, or the heroism of the rescuers. I most certainly
respect and applaud their efforts. But, should an elected official's actions
during one single event cause us to gloss over that person's track record on
other "day-to-day" issues? Strong leadership is important during times of
crisis, but that leadership should extend over the entire span of an elected
official's term -- not just when it is absolutely necessary. Elected
officials should be judged on their actual job performance, not on how they
look in front of a camera during a crisis.
Hypothetical polls just add
to the shallow, often unrealistic nature of the public discourse in our
country. The media feeds the atmosphere with its eagerness for headlines,
sound bites, and ratings. But if people demanded substance and coverage of
the issues that really have an impact on our lives, maybe the media would
start doing the more difficult, less glamorous reporting that would help us
become a more informed public, and perhaps pollsters would focus on the
issues that really matter. |
