Arianna Huffington: pull the plug on the media's obsession with polls

[G_j]

Despite mounting evidence that poll results can't be trusted,
pundits and politicians continue to treat them with a reverence
ancient Romans reserved for chicken entrails.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20105/

THE NUMBERS GAME
Arianna Huffington, AlterNet

I've been wanting to weigh in for a while now on the negative – indeed, the downright dangerous – impact that public opinion polls are having on our democracy, but have held off until the numbers turned in John Kerry's favor lest I be accused of following in the footsteps of my Greek ancestors by killing the messenger.

But now that the post-debate figures have swung Kerry's way, let me jump on the chance to say: It's time to pull the plug on the media's obsession with treating polling results as if Moses had just brought them down from the mountaintop.

Over the last month, media coverage of the presidential race has been driven by wildly vacillating poll numbers. For example, Newsweek has Kerry going from 11 points down in its Sept. 4 poll to 2 points up in this week's poll, while Gallup went from Kerry trailing by 14 points on Sept. 16 to dead even on Oct. 4.

Of course, at the same time that Gallup had Bush 14 points ahead, the Pew Center poll had the race all tied up; and now that Gallup has Kerry pulling even with Bush, Pew has the president holding a 7 point advantage.

..more..

[depakid]

1. Thank you, Arianna....

Now, if people would only listen.

I won't hold my breath....

[ClintonTyree]

2. Hear, hear................

kudos to Arianna (with whom I have a MAJOR crush) for saying what most everyone knows anyway. The polls ebb and flow like the tides with the exception that the tides are real and dependable.

[unblock]

3. it's not just the emphasis on polls, it's also the emphasis on strategy

it's as if the campaign is a sporting event (horserace) and the important thing is who's in the lead and how the candidates jockey for position, and how good are they in the home strech, rather than who would make the better president, what are their plans, what are their accomplishments, what are their capabilities.

they key difference is that horseraces are PASSIVE: you root and cheer, maybe even bet, but for the most part, the spectator simply watches and does not influence the result. elections should be ACTIVE: we don't simply root for our guy, we actually DECIDE who gets to become president.

the difference is profound. one is sport, the other is democracy.