|
Dalton
Roberts |
||
|
I'd
just as soon suck a giant persimmon jawbreaker as to write a column on
politics but the Van Hilleary poll caper of last week smoked me right
out of my peaceful slumber
in the cave of political hibernation. But before I tell you what he did,
let me admit to strong feelings about politicians addicted
to polling. Should people run
because they have good ideas and want to convince you of the soundness of their plans or should they just see what you
superficially think and then echo your views right back to you as their
program? What a copout! Shouldn't we be able to assume that a person
running for an office would have more information on the issues and
options than random persons answering the phone to be quizzed? Can you picture
Harry Truman doing a poll? Thomas E. Dewey took one and it said he was
going to be elected. Some newspapers believed it so much they had
already printed headlines, "Dewey Wins." The next day the
victorious Truman was pictured on many front pages with that million
dollar smile holding a newspaper with one of those "Dewey
Wins" headlines. Can you picture
Abraham Lincoln doing a poll? Asking people about emancipating slaves
and going to war? The political greats make news by forging ideas and
programs and taking stands that may be unpopular until they go to the
mat to sell what they propose. The people deserve that kind of respect
rather than the false respect of some pollster posing questions phrased
to get the answer their client desires. The guy sitting at home burping
down a beer after driving a truck from California to Tennessee makes no
pretense of being an expert. He's less interested in spouting his
opinions to a phoning pollster than he is in hearing some potential
solutions laid out and explained. Poll-crazy
politicians are usually boring, idea-free, gutless wastes of our time.
We can combat them by asking their callers, "Who is paying for this
poll?" and then explaining, "Hey, if he's running, he needs to
be telling us what he thinks rather than asking what we think. After
all, he's the one running. We'll tell him how we like his ideas on
election day. OK?" Having admitted
these clear biases about polling politicians, let's now look at what Van
Hilleary did last week. He released a poll indicating he had 41 percent
of the Republican voters for him or leaning toward him, compared to less
than 5 percent for opponent Jim Henry. And when did he release his
little poll? The day Jim Henry announced! I have no
confidence in early polls. It's no coincidence that those who buy polls
usually get the results they desire. You can safely include pollsters
among those who seldom bite the hand that feeds them. But even if this
poll was done professionally and that could be proven to us, I have
never seen one To release it the
day Henry announced makes Hilleary look like a little attention-starved
child who can't stand to see anyone else get a moment's attention. The
same issue of the paper that carried Henry's opening announcement
carried Hilleary's merry little chirp, "Everywhere I go, I am
amazed by the enthusiasm for my campaign." Sure you are. So
if things are going so spectacularly, why not take off a day and let
your opponent announce? Next came Wes
Anderson, partner in the good news polling firm saying (here in
January!) the GOP primary is all but over. His actual words: "It is
done; it is over. It would take an act of God." No, Mr. Anderson,
it wouldn't take an act of God to elect Jim Henry or some other
candidate. It would just take an act of the people. It's called voting.
And jaybirds like you might just make them mad enough to do that very
thing. |