Blog @ MoreWhat.com

This is one of those times when the frustration of a long campaign season bubbles over and opinions have to be expressed. For readers who do not know, this blog long ago expressed a preference for Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate for President in 2008. It would not be fair to continue this post without that reminder. A few details about the Presidential campaign have been frustrating as they do not seem to enter the discussion. One is the continuous changes to the primary election and caucus schedule. The other is polling data including at least two candidates that are not officially in the mix.

Offer all the arguments you like about election schedules and the importance of their chronological order. Whatever the impact on the outcome of the general election, wholesale changes to the schedules does nothing but muddy the water. You could compare it to certain aspects of the financial markets. While some events present significant influence on the advance or decline of the markets you will often hear reports that suggest the effects were already ‘factored in’ and had less than expected impact. Perhaps the same can be said of the primary election and caucus schedule if it remains a constant.

The second detail is the effect of including potential candidates in polls and surveys. Does this provide an unfair advantage or influence early opinions about upcoming elections? How much would the numbers shift if polling data was limited to officially designated candidates? Is there a similarity to this practice and limiting who attends candidate debates. Inclusion or exclusion in the political process has an effect. You could also ask if the concern expressed here is only being presented due to the preference for a particular candidate and the difference in early state versus national polls? Of course that is part of what raised the question. That alone demonstrates at least one effect of the current practice in polling. And obviously some light will be shed on this point after the Iowa Straw Poll results are known. But knowing the outcome only under one set of circumstances will not provide the basis for a conclusion.

A litany of other campaign and election issues about the process could be assembled. Hard money, soft money and other special interest influence is discussed but rarely reduced or limited. No need revisiting the election fraud issue as it has been overplayed and not showing signs of resolution. Negative campaigning and focus on irrelevant facts or the proclivity of various candidates could be ignored by voters. The same may not be true of published numbers.

The results of a CNN/Opinion Research Poll is offered at USA Election Polls. An increase in the Gingrich results is explained as a possible anomaly but is also stated as speaking ‘very low to the current field of candidates.’ Meaning his increased numbers express dissatisfaction over available candidates. An alternate view would support the argument that including those not officially in the race unfairly skews the data. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Other opinions are welcome and encouraged providing they adhere to common netiquette.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 11th, 2007 at 5:04 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, disclosure, ethics, oversight, United States. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.