Spare Me Your Exits Polls

The sideshow of the '08 primary campaign has been the endless media vivisection of how each subset of the electorate has broken for a particular candidate. The urban vote. The second generation Hispanic vote. The rural white vote with non-secondary education. How are older Catholic women voting?

The numbers are picked over like a Beatles LP from back in the day by "experts" looking for any bit of hidden meaning which ultimately -- like Paul's death -- might not be genuine.

It has become an obsession, and as with any obsession it is unhealthy. The conclusions drawn from these excavations usually reflect the media's own bias. After the Georgia primary where Obama pulled well among white male voters there seemed to be in the news collective dismay that the good ole boys would vote for the colored man. This, never mind Atlanta had its first black mayor back in 1974. There was no reason except prejudice to assume Obama couldn't pull a good portion of the white vote.

But with each round of voting the media echo chamber tends to magnify the disparities of each subset. Again and again we are told the black vote has abandoned the Clintons, older white women don't connect with Obama. This repetition breeds resentment; how dare "those people" not support my candidate? In short order our own opinions about those who abandon and those who refuse to connect calcify into animosity, making it hard for us to see the "other" candidate as potentially "our" candidate. It makes it all the more difficult when each candidate is publicly pushed and prodded as to why they are failing among a certain class of voter, and their response is then loaded with an unfortunate adjective: bitter or clinging or hard working (as opposed to that other group that doesn't work so hard).

There's an argument to be made there is news value to the continual crunching of the numbers.

There's an argument to be made there's value to the endless reporting of with whose stolen coat Lindsay Lohan is trotting around.

Clearly the candidates and their operatives have to be cognizant of their strengths and weakness within segments of the electorate.

For the rest of us it's enough to know who's winning and who's losing.

Comments

[chaz]

Good job John. You have finally realize that it's the media dividing this country and not the Clinton's. I guess there is hope for you after all.
I have to disagrees with your comment that "There was no reason except prejudice to assume Obama couldn't pull a good portion of the white vote." When you made this comment you were talking about Georgia. Well I live in North Carolina and I'm telling you right now that Obama's ability to pull a good portion of the white vote is an huge concern of mine and I'm not prejudice. I' ma realist and I live in the South and I'm hear to tell you that Bigotry, Racism, Sexism and any other ism you can think of is thriving in the South.
I'm white, I'm Catholic and I'm from Massachusetts and guess what there's tons of people down here who hate me for each and everyone of those reasons. So don't tell me Obama doesn't have a huge concern among white voters in the South. I'm going to vote for him but I'm not a Southerner either.

[60at]

HuffPost's Pick

Excellent article! Exactly on point! Just this morning I heard Pat Buchanan (MSNBC's dressed up version of Rush Limbaugh) going on and on at his highest pitch about how poorly Barack Obama is doing in the West Va. and Kentucky polling with white voters because they won't vote for a "leftist radical," (The new code words for "black man running for president" .) No one with half a brain really believes that Obama is a leftist radical. The media has resorted to nothing more than hacking away to define the candidates (especially on the Democratic side) in such a way that it insults their supporters and divides the party. This is the ONLY way that John McCain can win. It has to be that Democratic candidates are painted as "unsuitable to serve" in the minds of voters. Sadly, Hillary Clinton has drunk the Koolaid and thrown in with them in this approach to campaigning--but it has been to her detriment.

You are exactly right. After they[the media] have started using this foolishness over and over again, they now bait the candidates to talk about why certain groups may or may not be supporting them---just to transfer the rhetoric and then talk about what their responses are. Talk about inventing situations to have something to spin and report!

[chaz]

"Hillary Clinton has drunk the Koolaid and thrown in with them in this approach to campaigning"
Hello Hillary Clinton hasn't thrown in with anyone. For the past twenty years the Clinton's have been very consistent with there national politics. They always try to do what's best for this country period and for that reason the Clinton's have been treated like trash by the National Media. No two people in our nations history have been put under more scrutiny and had more lies told about them than these two. They're both great Americans and they should be treated as such.

[realpolitic]

The media allows conservatives to portray liberals using caricatures and derogatory terms in a way it would never allow liberals to portray conservatives.

[JJK]

At first, I thought this was an Orwellian satire, attacking those who would control the information available to the masses. But then I saw that the author was serious.

While interpreting exit polls can lead to unwarranted exuberance or depression as well as to distorting such polls for journalistic or political purposes, it is dangerous to take the view that: "Clearly the candidates and their operatives have to be cognizant of their strengths and weakness within segments of the electorate. For the rest of us it's enough to know who's winning and who's losing." Comparing the "news value" of "crunching" poll numbers to the "news value" of a braindead starlet is...well I don't know where to begin.

I have the right to develop an informed opinion about anything I choose. I am not so fragile intellectually or emotionally that I must rely on others to develop that opinion on my behalf and tell me what they decide is "enough for me to know."

Democratic Presidential "candidates and their operatives" have proven to be particularly bad judges of their own "strengths and weaknesses" over the years, while the "rest of us" have frequently perceived reality more accurately than those isolated in the "Bubble" of a Campaign.

So, thank you Mr. Ridley for trying to protect me from data that might be too hard for my weak brain to properly interpret, but I'll take my chances on a free and open flow of information that I sift for myself.

[Yukon Jack]

Maybe America should take look at how Canada does a federal election.

Every Canadian is enumerated by a federal volunteer. Party affiliation does not matter, after all, it is supposed to be a SECRET vote. Once a citizen is enumerated, when he/she comes to the polling place, his/her name will be on the voters' list at the polling place where the enumerator instructed him/her to vote. Nowhere else, so fraud is virtually impossible.

Exit polls are NOT allowed. Moreover, no results will be announced on the media until ALL the polling places are closed. This means that no results from the easternmost provinces will be known until the westernmost polling stations closed. Canada has one extra time zone compared to the United States.

To be sure, Canadian pundits (or is it more correctly, bandits) are just as sanctimonious and all knowing as their American counterparts and postulate and speculate until the cows come home, but they have to be more careful in order to save face.

All voting ballots from coast to coast are identical. No hanging chads in one privince and butterfly voting slip in an other.

By midnight EST all results are known, except the most closely contested "ridings".

I did some research on this in 2000, probably the most controversial election in U.S. history.

[chaz]

Great comment. I wish the US would do what the Canadians do but my guess is that the power that be in this country have it to good right now and nothing is going to change. By the way what do you know of the Canadian health care system. I know ours couldn't get much worse.

[Danny]

The way Canada votes is the way developed countries vote. Except for the U.S., which is losing its standing in the world as more and more outsiders find out about its deep flaws. And Chaz, we would do well to follow the example of developed countries in the way we deliver health care, as well. And I could go on to other areas (banking, energy, environment) where we have destructive policies.

[Yukon Jack]

Exit polls - in addition to the obvious demographics - perpetuate the totally inexplicable mystery: WHY oh, WHY does the Democratic Party captures 80+% of the African-American votes and a similar percentage of the Jewish votes.

Wasn't the Republican party who freed the slaves? Why would any black person vote for the party who is supported by those who have become millionaires peddling black misery, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?

Isn't the Republican party who is most steadfast in assisting and defending the Jewish State, Israel? Why would any Jewish person vote for the party of Jimmy Carter?

[Necron99]

I suspect that the people you're talking about know why they vote the way they vote...why can't you figure it out (yes, I know your questions are rhetorical)?

African Americans vote heavily democratic since the republican party decided specifically, and as a matter of public record, to support 'the southern strategy.' I'm sure you just failed to notice that for the last forty years or so.

As for American Jews--perhaps they value social justice, and what's good for America more than fueling some of Israel's less helpful policies? But again, acknowledging that would compromise your worldview pretty badly wouldn't it?

[Yukon Jack]

What you are implying is that during a Democratic administration everything is always just peachy-cream and hunky-dory, but as soon as a Republican is elected President he immediately cancels all the beautiful programs the previous Democratic President put in place. Just as a point of interest, I worked with a fellow computer programmer in Akron, Ohio, who was my friend until - during a friendly lunch - he was compelled to admit that he was wrong, Lincoln was NOT a Democrat.

During the "last forty years or so" there were Jimmy Carter and the "first black President" Bill Clinton. What is their achievement in lifting up the African-Americans? And while you are at making your long list, don't forget to mention who was the first black Secretary of State and the first black national security adviser. Also mention how the Democratic Party rail-roaded several black gubernatorial contenders. (Do your own research on this).

When you are talking about social justice held in high regard by Jewish voters, could you provide some data as to what percentage of their millions the Hollywood Jewish elites donate to charity? I am willing to bet that it is much lower than the donation or the actual physical contribution of an average Catholic or Presbyterian run of the mill common man/woman.

I may be wrong but in my humble opinion it is not the matter of "southern strategy" or "social justice", but plain and simple, stupidity.

[BeingFrank]

Yukon Jack,

You are right, but are also very wrong.

Names remain, while personalities and goals change.

Yes.
The party of Lincoln was a newly formed platform called the Republican party, and ran against the Democrats, on an Anti-Slavery platform.

No.
Lincoln's party is not the party of today, nor has it been for decades.

Only the name 'Republican' remained the same, while the direction turned full circle from unification of America for all Americans, to limiting rights, freedoms and tax breaks based on race and gender and class, with not only laws, but with organizations as the KKK, and ultra-right wing and religious fanatics.

While the nations first party, the Democratic party, took up the mantle to fight for rights that were denied the poor, women and minorities.

Some day the roles may reverse, because a party's direction is steered by it's leaders, however as for now, the Republican party would not be recognizable by Lincoln.

It's Republican in Name Only, unless that Republic is of a certain gender, color and financial class.

[njm50]

Yes, polls are very misleading. I support Obama, but when watching the poll results in IN and NC. I begain to think that he had lost NC and had no chance in IN. FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, PUTTING STOCK IN POLLS IS OUT !!!

[Yukon Jack]

There are only two intelligent ways to respond to pollsters who assault voters exiting the polling station:

1. Tell him/her that since it is supposed to be a SECRET vote, so how you voted is none of his/her business.

2. Tell him/her excatly the opposite of how you voted. Also, tell him/her exactly the opposite of who you are - unless the truth is readily visible.

Only idiots, looking for their few minutes of fame give the useless drones, also known as pollsters, the right answer.

It would be absolutely delightful to see the pollsters eat their "predictions" and be totally embarrassed.

THAT would be democracy at its best.

[Danny]

I like the sound of what you propose, but do you know ANYONE who's ever participated in an "exit poll"? Aren't they -- the "exit polls" -- cooked up in some corporate boardroom someplace where the hoi-polloi are not seated?

[MNmommy]

It seems, that it's all become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's a shame, America used to be better than this.

[bobo209]

The america populace is bombarded with propagandist corporate press with lies and we are being polled to death by the charlatan pundits, like the pentagones expoyets.. there is nothing american about this corporate kosher press.As a native navajo I am still looking for the WMD S..cake walk iraq cake abu gharib gitmo gulags renditions oops we cant disscuss these matters..let us take a poll on it.

Stop the drama vote obama or your mama.

[fun2bfree]

I wish that Obama-when asked these sorts of questions would give a different kind of answer something along these lines...

Well, that is so much the old way of politics-talk about the horserace and the process instead of addressing the problems. He should talk about devoting his energy to solving our problems with the economy, health care, the environment, Iraq, then discuss who is going to win which segment of the electorate. There was that fantastic documentary about the CIvil Rights battles of the past called Keep Your Eyes on the Prize. WInning the presidency is NOT the prize...solving our problems and helping America reach it's potential is the prize.

[LeonBNJ]

Exit polls can be very misleading but for very broad points. The voting districts that are selected for exit polls can be a critical factor. Many more representaional districts/voting locations may be located so that exit polling may be difficult to do so may under or over represent voters as to economic status, ethinc, racial or age groups.
Modern computers and programs have also made it easier to get more detailed info desired by politicans to micro target ad placements, proposed policy, discuss legisation and policies they have supported or not to voters. Perhaps we have gone too far with 'Black male bowlers over 55' extreme micro grouping of voters. By worrying about the 'micros' they fail to deal with or discuss broader issues such as the economy, the war in Iraq and other critical issues that can make a difference in who votes for them.

[trthskr]

After watching Paul Begala refer to me and the other 15,930,240 people who voted for Barack Obama as "eggheads and African Americans" (inciting a frazzled Donna Brazile to respond; "we need to not divide and polarize the Democratic Party. . . . So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul.."), it was off to Wikipedia to see what an egghead is. Apparently, the term egghead reached its peak during the 1950s, when vice-presidential candidate Richard Nixon used it against Democratic Presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson so the term earned the connotation of being 'politically minded' and 'liberal'.

We "eggheads and African Americans", all 15,930,240 of us, should present our faces to the world, little thumbnail snapshots with links to our diverse bios so that we can be seen for what we are; Americans, people, voters,hard workers, men, women, young, old, black, white, brown, well off, struggling, in-between, single, married, parents, children, democrats, independents and even some republicans. What we have in common is far greater than our differences, we all want a change from the warmongering of the Bush administration with its tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and all its other evils. We want hope for a better future, a president and government who can break with the old Washington way of doing things to represent the people, not the special interest.

Why not take up that challenge, cable news wallpaper, to fill your endless news cycle? Find out who we really are.

[Jimbo62]

The idiocy of the MSM is astounding. I offer my services to them as an analyst, I have a masters degree in communications research and the analysis I see is so wrong most of the time. For example, I saw Bill Schneider on CNN take some exit poll numbers from one of the primaries a while back and state that Hillary got 54% of some group of people, I forget which one, and Schneider then makes a statement that this group of people is going to Hillary. To extropolate 54% into all people, which is what he implied when he made his statement, is crazy. Of course, the margin of error wasn't even mentioned, but doesn't matter because 54% is awfully close to 50% and his statement was just plain exaggeration. The other thing that bothers me about all this analysis of the primary election is the idea that just because someone is voting for Hillary, doesn't mean they are voting against Obama. It isn't Black or White, we actually have a choice in this election and picking one over the other doesn't automatically mean that the one not picked is flawed. No one that I've seen on the 24 hour news shows has the brains to point this out. I'm sure that it holds true even within the black community, which of course no one is concerned that Hillary doesn't appeal to black voters, but I'm sure the black community isn't voting against Hillary, but rather FOR Barack.

[fnygy]

Sorry, but that ship has sailed. Polls help us label people and labels help us sell things to people (from toothpaste to candidates) and so, in a consumer culture - they are HERE TO STAY! For my money, individuals need to teach themselves that these labels are designed in hopes that we'll identify ourselves in specific ways and then be more susceptible to whatever message is thrown our way. Marketing needs targets - labels help create the bullseye.

[Midnightrain]

You complain too much John. That's an unhealthy obsession.