[SfN] Gallup Poll

[Jim Buell]

Very well put re the falseness of polls, Arun. BTW, your great letter re 
the falseness of Gore's environmental record (with a plug for the 
Cockburn/St. Clair book) ran today in the News-Gazette.

There's also an article in the same paper about a TV station poll out of 
Chicago (sample size a few hundred) that claims to show a narrowing of the 
Gore-Bush gap in this state, but I agree with you that these polls are 
largely meaningless or worse.

jb



>Chicago Tribune's website's latest figures had Gore above Bush by 8
>points (47-39), but that figure is more than a week old.  Chicago had
>85% supporting Gore.  But polls are meaningless.  They sample 1000 people
>to reflect 100 million, and they're only sampling "likely voters."  I don't
>know anyone that's ever been polled, and I'm not sure I know anyone that
>knows anyone that's been polled.  Only statewide polls matter in national
>elections due to the electoral system, anyhow, but those polls tend to be
>less accurate and less frequently conducted.
>
>I'm not sure if polling is good or bad for the Nader campaign.  In a blind
>vote, perhaps all but the courageous would vote for Gore to keep Bush
>out of office.  On the other hand, polls are necessary for those to vote
>for Nader if Gore leads by a "safe" margin.
>
>Polls are evil.  Paul is exactly right that polls perpetuate the two-party
>system as much as any of the other devices -- corporations, corporate media,
>genetic memory, etc.  Polls have people voting their fears, not voting their
>conscience.  Media coverage of debates are just as silly; the major concern
>is always "who was the winner?" because that can sway some people's votes
>more than discussing issues.  Of course, there's little to actually talk
>about in terms of difference of issues.  I see this covered everywhere
>in the media.  "Once again, the debates were a snooze as the candidates
>refused to acknowledge a substantial difference of opinion."  It almost
>sounds like every reporter is voting Nader or not voting at all.  It doesn't
>matter which of the two candidates get elected -- we're going to get roughly
>the same end result.  The only difference is which corporations get served
>best in the end, and many corporations have hedged their bets on both sides.
>
>I don't trust Bush or Gore, I really don't know where they truly
>stand.  Bush and Gore are both trying to sound like populist
>centrists, yet I know their records both show otherwise (really, they
>both fall on the same side), so who knows what to expect from either
>of them?  Have you seen their campaign ads?  They both say the same
>things.  I really don't see what everyone fears about Bush.  What's so
>worse about Bush than Gore?  I want people to get past the partisan
>nonsense.  A vote for Bush or Gore is a vote for the status quo, with
>minor tweaks either way. A vote for Nader is a real vote for change.
>A vote for Nader is a vote for the future.  Four years of Bush (or
>four more years of Gore, for that matter) can only leave so much
>damage.  But we need someone to think of the future.  "How dare Nader
>run during such a close election!"  When won't it be close?  When will
>people give third parties the chance that they deserve?  When else
>will the seeds for deep democracy be sown?  When will the cycle be
>broken?  "There's always next time" some Cubs fans might say.  But
>there's no better time than now.  In fact, it is the best time because
>there's so little to lose.  Gore and Bush are so similar, it really
>doesn't matter how Nader's campaign affects the election.  The choice
>between Gore and Nader is not as fuzzy as the choice between Gore and
>Bush.  And a vote for Nader now buys us all four years closer to
>progress.
>
>A vote for Nader brings us closer to the badly needed 5% to make the
>Green Party a second party.  A vote for Bush or Gore changes so
>little.  What happens if Gore loses by a margin less than Nader's
>votes?  Perhaps the Democratic Party then realizes to adjust their
>platform, and it's a win for us.  Activism becomes stronger and more
>critical of Congress and the White House.  What if Gore wins but Nader
>does not get 5% of the popular vote?  We still end up with a
>conservative in the White House, some progressive organizations will
>become lax in their efforts, and the Green Party (or some other third
>party) will have to fight just as hard during the next four years.
>
>I'm glad that Nader & LaDuke are running for president.  If not for
>them (and perhaps another third party), I would not be voting for any
>presidential candidate this year, and I'd have so little positive
>passion towards the race at all.  Candidates need to earn their votes,
>and Gore sure doesn't deserve my vote.
>
>In solidarity,
>Arun
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nader-uiuc mailing list
>Nader-uiuc at lists.groogroo.com
>http://lists.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/nader-uiuc