(This may be the longest post ever on Pinkdome)

As someone that nearly failed my political theory class and statistics in college, I am awed by statistics and numbers analysis. I find it fascinating to dive into numbers and review statistical analysis. I just don't want to have to do it myself.

I recently had an encounter with modern day political polling that gave me a new appreciation for statistical analysis and scientific research. The encounter I was a part of was not scientific. I went to a call center where they were doing polling for the Republican presidential primary in a Northeastern state. Once I came to terms with having to sit on a phone and ask people how important it was that their candidate oppose abortion and gay marriage, I began the process of letting the software make calls so I could read the script. (Continue reading by clicking permalink)

The software is amazing. The phone lets out a small beep signaling a live person has answered the phone and triggering me to launch into a script. The computer program tracks the answers and length of the call. That part fascinated me. What was not fascinating is that every one of the questions were skewed and not scientific. Why would a campaign pay money to get results that meant nothing to them? Oh, because they could release it as a press release and have 'scientific' numbers to back up their positions.

When I was in school, I worked for the Institute of Social Science Research and the Captsone Poll at the University of Alabama. It is a highly regarded research center and the focus is on compiling usable scientific data. I remember many people pouring over questions to ensure they were neutral so that a person responding would not be swayed by the wording of the question. There were even lessons on how to ask the question so 'tone of voice' would not be prejudicial.

So, I was stunned at the wording of the questions and the answer choices that were clearly meant to direct people to a certain answer. "Are you opposed to Congress earmarking funds for pet projects without a normal review process?" one question asked. How would anyone respond to that. "Eh, I am in favor of pet projects and screw normal process!"

Even if a campaign is paying for a poll, they should want actual results. If you want to make it a campaign call, then go ahead and pay for that instead. It's the same with the 'push polls' that ask "Are you opposed to robbing banks?" and then, "Well, did you know that Candidate A robs banks! Would that make you more or less likely to support that candidate?"

Yet another example why politics in general continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Lying, cheating, and manipulating...ugh, it sounds like my last boyfriend.