Maggie's Farm

 
Personally, from a strategic viewpoint, I think Team McCain is really blowing it with this "Look at Obama's terrible past!" routine.  BFD, guys!  And certainly harping on the current economic mess isn't going to appeal to anyone.  He should be talking about fun stuff, like guns and energy, and constantly driving home the one (perhaps only) theme that might actually do some good — putting "Democrats" and "your taxes going up" in the same sentence.  Over and over and over again.
 

Today's question is, have you ever actually thought about polls?  And who it is that's taking them?
 

Let me ask you a few basic questions:

Let's say Barack Obama picks a senator with many years of experience as his vice-presidential running mate.  Are you now suddenly going to vote for Obama?  Probably not.  A VP pick shouldn't be enough to sway your vote — you're primarily voting for the president.

Let's say John McCain then picks a fresh face for his VP position, a real go-getter with a good track record.  Are you suddenly going to vote for McCain?  Probably not, and for the same reason.

Okay, let's say Obama gives a terrific speech at the Democratic Convention.  Because of the speech, does he now have your vote?  Probably not.  Not over just one speech, hopefully.

Then John McCain and his VP pick both give rousing speeches at the convention.  Do they suddenly have your vote because of just two speeches written by some of the best speechwriters in the world?  Let's hope not.
 

None of these events will cause you to change your vote, because one of two things is going on:

• Either you've already made up your mind and you don't have any bearing on the constant fluctuation of the polls, or
   
• If you haven't made up your mind by this point, you probably never really will.  You'll get in the voting booth and end up impulsively voting for one or the other for probably the flimsiest of reasons.  McCain's against this.  Obama's for that.  Just one little thing that actually has meaning in your life.  You'll cast your vote and then, like everybody else, you'll tell anybody who asks that you voted for Obama, just because you'll want to seem cool and hip and with-it.

These are the types of people taking these poles, and the actual fluctuation of each candidate's daily rise and fall comes from the people in the second group.  Obama gives a big speech on racism, he's got their vote.  McCain promises to lower gas prices, he's got their vote.
 

Suddenly, Obama (1) makes headlines because he was there when they pulled the little girl out of the well and (2) makes headlines when he's given an honorary degree at the prestigious Boston Globe University, and he suddenly leaps ahead in the polls by two — count them — two precious micropoints!

"MCCAIN CAMP TAKES FATAL HIT!" screams the New York Times.

 
When you actually think it through; about polls going up or down after a big speech or similar event, you really have to stop at some point and wonder just what type of people these are who appear to be so flaky that event after event makes them bounce back and forth.

I'm picturing something like this:

 
(rii-ii-iing!)

"Hello?"

"Hi, this is Bill Jennings from the Ropers Polling Network.  Got time for a quick polling question?"

"Uh, sure!"

"By the way, did you hear that Obama wants to take money from big evil companies and give it to poor people?"

"Why, no, I hadn't heard that.  That's wonderful!"

"He's also going to fight desperately to cut your taxes in half."

"Wow!"

"So, who are you voting for?"

"Well, gosh, put me down for Obama!"

"You got it!"
 

"NEW POLL: MCCAIN TEETERS ON ABYSS!" screams the New York Times.

  
Here's the thing about polls:

• Every two years, after the election, people look at how far off some of the polls were and sagely conclude that polls are basically worthless.
   
• A year later, they're the most precious thing in the known universe.  Bloggers, columnists and journalists breathe them in daily and spend hours writing about their significance.  Yes, but why did it suddenly drop .6 micropoint?

Of course, if Palin and (fill in blank) win this thing, they'll be talking about nothing but polls for the next century.  "How could they have been so far off?  How, tell us, how?!"

 
'The Cynicism of Innocence' — a 1-act play by Dr. Mercury
 

(curtain)

"Did you hear?  McCain's said he's in favor of drilling offshore and his poll numbers went up a whole point."

"No!"

"Yeah!  Then Obama said he was against taxing poor people and his numbers went up a whole point."

"No!"

"But that's not all!  Paris Hilton came out with another political video and her numbers went up a whole point."

"No!"

"That's right!  It's the American political system at work!"

"No!"

(curtain)
 

Of course, personally, I don't care if the polls are 'accurate' or not.  I think 60% of the voters are going to say they're voting for Obama on the way into the booth, 60% of the voters will say they voted for Obama on the way out, and Sarah Palin and old (fill in blank) will win with 60% of the vote.

I like round numbers.
 

As I've noted before, I think we're going to see all kinds of unprecedented things on November fourth.  Besides the obvious, like voting for a black person or a female, I think we'll see an enormous number of lies surrounding the event.  The guys will be voting with their hormones and telling their wives afterward that of course they voted for Obama, females of every race will feel like "it's now or never" when it comes to breaking the glass ceiling (no matter who does it!) and likewise will lie to their spouses afterward...

And everybody will lie to the press.

  
Well, we'll see y'all tonight when these two privileged gasbags men of action buy their way face off against advertising royalties each other in a sop to the proletarian masses brutal fight to the almighty dollar finish!