Candidates Count On Us

The election is still some weeks away, but our twenty-four hour a day mainstream media seems intent on asking us how we're going to vote; when of course they're not trying to subliminally tell us how we're going to vote. They're apparently able to gain such knowledge through a rather arcane and twisted form of telemarketing known as polling. Don't get me wrong here.  There’s nothing actually new in using such a process, and there have been reputable firms like Rasmussen who have been doing it for many years; but these once reputable families have spawned a host of illegitimate offspring.

You see, with the increase in the number of network news organizations, the need to fill twenty-four hours of programming, and the desperate desire of daily newspapers to feel at least somewhat relevant in today’s world; it seems that everybody and their illiterate brother now wants to stick their name on this process of suffrage soothsaying. In fact, I don't believe I've seen this much attention paid to polls by the media since the year that the national newspaper conference and the stripper's convention were going on at the same time in Las Vegas. (I believe that's the year they came up with the slogan, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".)

These pollsters will tell you that they've become quite sophisticated over the years in what they call 'leveraging' their polls to compensate for the number of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans expected to participate in the voting process. Voters in turn will tell you that they've become quite sophisticated themselves in conniving pollsters of into specious target identification (lying about the information counted on by pollsters for accuracy). Having briefly studied this often confusing form of mathematics while in college, I was always curious as to how in their methodical application probability and statistics, pollsters could also factor in that the only people analyzed were those willing to stay on the phone long enough 'to answer a few simple questions'.  Such a bias in data gathering hardly seemed to form a true sample. This would seem to become especially problematic when pollsters are attempting to gather numbers on 'likely voters' as opposed to 'likely poll takers'. 

 

Of course once their results are published we see one of their real purposes, as they become endless fodder used by media moderators and pundits alike. Those whose candidate is ahead can talk about the reputable nature of the polling organizations, while those behind can berate such organizations for media bias, improper skewing, and inconsistency with other polls. After they've decided that the information that they've just spent 30 minutes tearing apart and putting back together is of no value, they can go on to tell you how it will skew the polls on voting day for the final 30 minutes of their respective programs. Those ahead complain that leading in the polls causes voters not to vote for a candidate who already appears to be winning. Those behind in turn can complain that such numbers dissuade those supporting their candidate for bothering to vote in what these numbers say is a foregone conclusion against them. 

 

There are organizations that attempt further accuracy to such information by analysis of the output of the various polling organizations, believing that by averaging the inclinations of those averaging the inclinations, they can improve the odds of success. They may be right in method of course, but you certainly don't see anyone using such a methods at the crap table.

For myself, I find the entire process more than a little annoying under most circumstances, but perhaps that's because I am constantly beleaguered for my opinion from pollsters who think I still live in a battleground state. Oh sure, I can occasionally amuse myself by convincing the person on the other end of the line that I'm of a different race, income bracket, or political persuasion. After a while however, even randomly manipulating the careful conjectures of these statistical sadists loses its appeal.

Inevitably, I can't help but remember what polling has done to governance, and to be appalled that political campaigns have come to be run by these daily interrogations of the people in order to decide what the candidate believes from day to day. Such misuse of mathematics insults those who show the personal responsibility required to work for candidates, let alone those who show up on election day. All deserve better than to be constantly cross-examined to discover if they are as fickle in their core beliefs as the candidates that they invariably support.

 

I am proud to say however, that there has been one exception to this rule lately. It was a time when polling was far from required to divine the beliefs and the mood of the nation. For one brief and shining moment during this recent week of the campaign, the nation finally stood united. Partisan political bickering was set aside, if only for a time, and there was bi-partisan support across the nation crying out to the world with one voice on a Tuesday morning, 

 “We gotta get the regular refs back to work in the NFL.”

Congressional (Dis)Approval

Recent polling data shows that the American people are not particularly happy with the current crop of elected representatives supposedly serving them in Congress. Of course this might have something to do with the fact that Congress turned a deaf ear to the greater part of the American public during the health care debate, and that even now after its passage we find support for health care reform hovering at about 38%. 


With the subsequent passage of a financial reform package that was going to curb the excesses of Wall Street and protect John Q Public from evil banking institutions, we now see that few of Mr. Public's extended family (about 32.8%) believes that the country is going in the right direction. But certainly the recent exhibition of a serious hearing disability from Congress can't be the only reason that voters are so disgusted. 


Perhaps then, it's disappointment felt when promises by the current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who might still have some questions of her own to answer about the use of military aircraft) to end some if not all of the corruption committed by law makers were less than fulfilled. Yes, we saw lawmakers from Louisiana to Nebraska showing just how ugly the legislative process can be while attempting to secure special privilege for their respective districts during debate and negotiation for final vote counts. (R) Scott Brown has proved equally disappointing, sweeping in on a tide of Conservative votes in Massachusetts only to show himself far less principled than promised (though he was taking Sen. Kennedy's seat after all) by casting votes with the Democrats that he campaigned against. 


But it wasn't merely the so-called "sausage making" of legislation that has cast a pall over Congressional credibility, but the corruption as well. We barely had time to forget the $90,000 found in (D) Rep. William Jefferson's freezer (and apparently the over $470,000 that he funneled into shell companies under his family's control), when we were confronted recently with the potential lapses of judgment by (D) Rep. Charles Rangel. Rangel, the former head of the House Ways and Means Committee (the Committee that writes tax laws) has been cited for 13 potential ethics violations for everything from misusing four rent control apartments to not declaring income and assets properly to Congress or the IRS. 


But such behavior is not limited to the House of Representatives, nor is it limited to Democrats. Republicans have had their share of offenders over the years and as a consequence have no claims to sainthood. While Rangel is the latest poster child for corruption in the national legislature, he is far from the only member operating under questionable circumstances. And while many are asking how Congress can let him remain in their midst, few are asking how someone on a Congressional salary can afford the rent on four apartments in NYC, a vacation home in the Dominican Republic, and bank accounts totaling some $500,000. 


Fewer still realize that if he manages to resign from office, he will undoubtedly be able to keep a Congressional pension that should land him about $150,000 per year and a medical retirement program that would be the envy of any of us. Those of us looking however, do not see Rangel as exceptional. 


Far too many enter Congress claiming to want to 'serve the people' and find themselves millionaires by the time of their eventual departure. Far too many then leave lucrative government service to enter even more lucrative government lobbying or media punditry. The few that choose to forgo such 2nd career windfalls still manage to make the rounds on the paid speaking circuit, get lucrative contracts to write their memoirs, and live in quiet luxury after performing a job that the Founding Fathers considered no more than a temporary position. 


The Founders it seems, had an expectation that after serving their country for a time, legislators would return to the private sector and to 'honest labor'; and would support themselves and their families through their own efforts. I expect that they would be shocked to find Washington DC (named after a politician who retired after 8 years of service to the nation, and without a pension by the way) populated by 'professional politicians' living off of the largess of the American taxpayer. 


The pursuit of power has always been dangerous to both the ruling elite and the ruled, and this appears to be especially so with today's 'public servants'. In fact, one cannot help but feel that for many of those in Congress, their public service turns out to be little more than self-service; with the office providing ample opportunity for greed, graft, and self-gratification (could it be merely coincidence that the House chamber is semi-circular). It should therefore be no real surprise that as yet another election cycle approaches, we now seem to hold those in office with relative disdain. Polling data compiled by Real Clear Politics in fact shows the average for Congressional approval hovering around 21%. 


I suspect however, that this number is even higher than it should be and as the fateful day approaches, that voters will show even less approbation to those running for office this year. I fear that many of our legislators are like to receive a considerable amount of (dis)approval.

Record Numbers At Pools

Every media outlet in the US is reporting record numbers of voters at the pools on this Election Day. While the weather here is Toledo is unusually warm for this time of year, this news is more than a surprise to me. 

First of all, most of the pools in the area closed, as per local tradition, during the Labor Day Weekend. Second, what this should have to do with voters on Election Day is beyond me. 

Hold on ... Wait a minute ... It turns out that in fact that there are a record number of voters at the polls (you know, those places where you go to vote). The release that I read must have had a typo. ... Sorry