Why polls are meaningless

When "Hillary Clinton" is put up against McCain or Giuliani, she pulls different numbers than if "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is put up against the same names.

Is the electorate really that stupid? Do they only have a 5-syllable attention span, so that they forget she was the Prevaricator-in-Chief's co-president? Does she sound more important or powerful with a longer name?

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/jeffrey.quick/mt-tb.cgi/10518

Comments

gravatar

Posted by: jeffrey smith
Posted on: October 23, 2006 10:41 PM

It's been my experience that polynoms like HRC seem to suggest a greater impact, a more important person than shorter versions. George Bush, Sr. and George Herbert Walker Bush bring out different associations; for that matter, does George Bush, Jr. and George W. Bush. It's akin to nicknames, which are used to suggest intimacy but also to deflate the person referred to.

But I think the real point to consider is just how scientific and representative these sorts of polls are. Approximately 500 people to represent the universe of registered voters in the US? My skepticism remains high.

Post a comment





If you have entered an email address in the box, clicking this checkbox will subscribe your email address to this entry so that you are notified if any updates or additional comments occur on the entry.