The Polls

Polls are things you should be wary of, especially this early, as we've said before.

2008Central has a nice post on this, about just how shockingly little voters know, and that they base their opinions on sheer image.

It is image, of course, that is the most easily manipulated. If a voter cares about an issue or multiple issues, she will therefore take a little time to be informed on them, and it is impossible to manipulate a voter like this into doing something that they really don't want to do. But if someone is voting on "leadership" for example, or if someone is an "independent" and just chooses "the best for the job, irregardless," then the campaign has the voter right where they want them, and will try their best to feed them image and spin and propaganda. That's what campaigns are all about. You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on, as a very wise campaigner once quipped.

The voters at the bottom of the voting spectrum who cast their ballots at random cancel each other out in a two-party system.

The voters at the top of the spectrum are the ideologues or party stalwarts who will vote rain or shine for the party closest to their views, or which they grew up with. When these voters change allegiance, it's a big deal, and you have a group realignment going on.

The voters in the middle are either nature-of-the-times voters or image voters. The nature-of-the-times voters vote against incumbents if they perceive their situation, their state or areas' situation, or the country's situation as in need of a change of leadership. These voters are the designated recipients of spin as to the direction of the country (incumbents will claim that things are going well, their policies are working, etc.). The image voters are the targets for the campaign's propaganda machine.

Polls are an amazing tool for discerning how the campaign is doing and the strategies on which to focus. At this point, however, when voters have tuned out so completely, the polls as Jay Cost said (see out last post) are only the reflection of elite opinion.

A perfect illustration of this is to be found in an article the Wall Street Journal had last week. The title was: "Giuliani's Backing Hints at Party Turn: Emphasis on Defense, Economy Rather Than Social Issues Is Drawing Some Republicans." This story is a pure media invention. As 2008Central points out, people don't even know why they like Giuliani when they say they like him--they know they're supposed to think that he was strong on 9/11, but they don't know why he was or what he did. It's a reflection of elite opinion. In the WSJ story, it's the pure need to fill up the pages. The story admits, for instance:

Only 43% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters could identify him as a pro-choice candidate in a recent Pew Research Center poll. Even those who said abortion is "very important" to them weren't aware of his stand.

The thesis of the piece is that because Giuliani is doing well and is socially liberal, the voting base of the Republican party is trending this way. It's a logic that collapses if you have any of the necessary skepticism of opinion polls. When it comes time to vote, then voters have something to do--they have to make a decision. Then they make the effort to inform themselves. Why would I read a manual on how to repair an airplane engine, if I have no intention of getting anywhere near one in the future? If I need to, then it makes sense to inform myself and read the manual. Otherwise, save the slaking of a purely intellectual curiosity, it would be a waste of time.

Same thing in politics. Informing myself of the candidates positions now, months and months and months before I have to do anything about it, only means I'm a political elite--I have the time, education, and means to interest myself in what is really a pretty meaningless pursuit as far as most people are concerned.