Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
I could debunk the Washington Post-ABC News Poll as being unreliable, produced by media doing nothing more than trying to hype readership or viewership. (Hey, they got Keedy's attention pretty quick, didn't they?) That's how lots of readers on this forum respond when information is presented that they don't agree with and refuse to even consider.
But I won't. I'll accept that the Washington Post and ABC News sponsored the poll, and had it conducted by an experienced pollster with no particular "agenda" in mind. I intend to consider the poll results and the trends that it presents (the same poll was conducted several weeks in a row in order to capture trends in public opinion). My initial reaction is that the poll results are probably a good thing. They suggest that the American public is beginning to take the time to understand the details of the healthcare reform legislation being considered...at least I hope that's what the poll results suggest. I certainly hope that the poll results don't suggest that the American public is beginning to believe that no action is necessary or no money should be spent to reform healthcare. That would be tragic.
All I ask in the future is that readers here accept some of the information that is provided that they might not necessarily agree with, if for no other reason than to understand different points-of-view regarding an issue, a candidate, or legislation. It seems to me that's what this forum is supposed to be all about. If it gets reduced to partisan bashing and counter-bashing of others' ideas, beliefs or candidates, I can tell you for sure that I can find better ways to spend my time.
|
No idea-bashing intended. We learn better through questioning than blind acceptance.
I will say that I never believe polls - ever. That does not say they can't be accurate occasionally, or that they are always done by folk with an agenda. Humorously, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. I just don't trust them because I've seen so many done by both political parties and their allies which were tainted. This is especially true when the folk polled are uninformed on the topic, but want to "follow the leader," whomever the leader (Rep, Dem, other). The "most people believe" opinion is bandied too much by too many.
All too often opinions and positions are based on subjective information which is colored to appear to be objective. Finding objective sources is becoming more and more difficult, so secondary analysis of the source is necessary. Some folk will take a Fox poll and discount an ABC or CNN one, or vice versa. Why? Because that secondary analysis is indeed the basis for self-determination of the efficacy of the poll.
I like objective data, prepared by sources with "no dog in the fight." These sources are rarely bright, shiny, colorful and demonstrative. In fact, most of these sources are downright dull. Sources like the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service are apolitical by their very nature and not popularly quoted since their products are, well, dull and don't make inspired reading. Yet, they are substantive, neutral, objective and factual.
That's why I rely on CBO and CRS reports so much, even if they lack popularity. Their analyses are subject to both political parties' attack when and if they drift into subjectivity. If neither party rebuts a CBO or CRS report, it's easy to conclude the data is factual and any analysis is sound. Yet, folk often want to ignore the CBO or CRS reports, because the reports don't confirm a media article, poll or political position.
ADDENDUM: VK, I can't think of too many better ways to spend time than debating, contrasting, questioning and formulating opinions, and it's even more fun being involved in intellectual calisthenics with folk who see things differently. If we thought the same, life would indeed be dull, and nothing would ever be learned. The activity keeps the synapses firing, and that's a healthy thing.