Poll-Tested Questioners
John Judis makes several interesting points about the oddity of selecting a debate audience composed of people who (a) tell pollsters they’re thus-far “uncommitted” and (b) are demographically representative of the country:
I remember having similar questions about the rules that limited juries in infamous and well-known cases to people who hadn’t even heard of the cases and had no opinion about them. Wouldn’t the result be that you might limit the pool of questioners – or jurists – to the less informed parts of the population, or to the more quirky and less representative. OK, suppose that 13 percent of the questioners are African-Americans, which would roughly fit the population. Where are the debate chieftains going to come up with genuinely uncommitted African American voters?
Along these lines, given Obama’s lead in the polls a group of uncommitted voters is going to be a disproportionately right-of-center group of people.
30 Responses to “Poll-Tested Questioners”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 7th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
the differences between the two candidates are stark. anyone who remains uncommitted now is too fucking stupid to be allowed to ask questions.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
It’s fine. Obama is such a superior intellect, and his program and philosophy are so superior, that it’s literally impossible to devise questions that would permit McCain to defeat him in any debate forum.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
You know, if there were Jews in the SS, you can certainly find some, so keep looking!
.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
i’m with Rich.
don’t worry about it, OBAMA HAS GOT THIS. our job: donate, sell our friends, make calls, volunteer to make this a 1932-style wave election.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Agreed with the above comments. I’m not afraid of Obama getting tough questions from a right-of-center POV, as those represent opportunities to score points that friendly questions really don’t. A hornets nest of McCain-supporting ringers snidely asking falsely-premised questions would be a different matter; hopefully Brokaw cares enough about his legacy not to allow the latter.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Which is fine, given that they are who Obama needs to be reaching now.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
With respect to John’s assumption about juries, in fact it’s almost never cause to exclude a juror simply because they have heard of the case. The question is how much they’ve heard, what they’ve heard, and whether it has unfairly predispositioned them one way or the other.
Similarly, they’re obviously not limited the debate audience to people who’ve never heard of Obama or McCain, or have no opinions about them… the question is, have they already made up their mind? Although I would add that unlike a jury, where you really do need fairness, I don’t see why the open-mindedness of your audience is particularly important or even desirable in a debate.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I think the lionization of the undecided voter is ridiculous. There are stark ideological differences between the two candidates. Anyone who is undecided now is clearly not paying attention or intends to vote based on how they “feel” on the candidates rather than on the policy positions of the candidates. In either case, I would rather hear questions from well informed, engaged voters.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
“given Obama’s lead in the polls a group of uncommitted voters is going to be a disproportionately right-of-center group of people.”
Yeah, but that’s balance. In the MSM, an ideologically balanced panel is three conservatives, one moderate, and one liberal. That said, I’m with Tyrone. If we can beat them on their turf, we’ll do fine on our own.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
[G]iven Obama’s lead in the polls a group of uncommitted voters is going to be a disproportionately right-of-center group of people.
This at first sounded like a great point to me, but on second thought I don’t really think we have any reason to believe this. Why does the fact that more Americans are currently supporting Obama imply that there are more uncommitted voters with right-of-center leanings than left-of-center leanings? It certainly follows from the fact they’re not currently supporting Obama that they’re less Obama supporting than the average voter, since the average voter supports Obama, but I’m not sure if these two are the same thing.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
They could select the questions at random, or have people vote on the questions online. They could also weight according to political party. (in which case I’m expecting at least 5% green party and 5% libertarian questioners)
Highly partisan questions would make explicit what everyone knows, which is that the ability to ask questions is a form of political power. A question imposes upon the person being asked the burden of reciprocating or else seem evasive and unsocial. If the media allowed political power to pass to the average person (who they claim to know so much about) then they know that all sorts of uncertain things will happen.
Not only would the questioners violate an untold number of media taboos but the media’s usefullness would be cast into doubt. Since the media doesn’t actually analyze and provide truth about candidates statements or inject new facts/questions into the discourse, its only role left is as gate keeper. Take that away from them and they become a cross between cspan and youtube.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
the differences between the two candidates are stark. anyone who remains uncommitted now is too fucking stupid to be allowed to ask questions.
Just because the differences are stark doesn’t mean it’s easy for everyone to choose. People could support Obama’s foreign policy but prefer McCain’s domestic policies. Or vice versa. Or prefer one’s issues but the other’s personality. Or a thousand variations on this theme.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Here’s what Venice voters have to say about the Obama-McCain choice….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEMzvFZsGE&feature=email
October 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Limiting the questions to “uncommitted” voters isn’t an oddity - the entire reason we have a nationally televised debate is to help voters make up their minds. If you’re already 100% decided, there’s no reason to watch tonight other than curiosity about the process (I assume everyone reading this blog is curious about the political process).
I don’t know how the hosts of this debate are defining “uncommitted,” but I believe the category generally includes both “undecided” voters and voters who currently support one candidate, but say they may change their mind.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
In the MSM, an ideologically balanced panel is three conservatives, one moderate, and one liberal.
Not quite. Instead of one liberal, it’s usually one ex-liberal who hasn’t quite noticed or admitted to the change. See Kaus, Mickey or Cohen, Richard.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
You have to remember that 40% of the American people can’t even name the three branches of government. They can’t name the Vice President, their Governor, Senators or Representatives. They generally don’t vote and don’t think about politics; ever, if they can help it.
If you want to see them, they’re the ones who appear on the Jay-walk All-stars and can’t name one continent or any of the planets, and when asked how many planets there are say “1 million?”
Scientific testing starting in the 1940’s has confirmed over and over that a tiny percentage of the population, much less than 10% knows a lot about politics and government.
A much larger percentage, including up to over 50% can answer very simple basic questions, like the names of the major Presidential candidates, and which party they represent, perhaps 1 or 2 things they think either one might possibly stand for.
And the rest of the people, some 40% know absolutely nothing.
They are completely tuned out. Some of them are somehow registered to vote and in the last 2 weeks of an election, the frenzy becomes so great that, like hurricane winds beating against the walls of a bar where dedicated drunks are trying to hunker down and ignore the storm, the sheer volume gets to be too much.
So, the ignorant blearily get up and stagger to the polls. Their decisions are likely to be completely random walk decision-making.
They vote McCain because he’s “been there” or Obama because, well God only knows.
It’s likely that 80% of the hard-core “undecided” break for McCain at the last minute out of sheer inertia. The real question is how many will bother to show up and vote in the first place.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
There are many reasons why people could be undecided. My father-in-law is a committed Republican. A fine man, very responsible and upright, traditional in his moral views and high minded. Watching the Republican Party collapse over the last eight years has been difficult for him, in his sixties, to process. My husband and I have been working on him, in as non-partisan way as possible, to let him see the facts more clearly. But one virtue that he has in abundant quantity is loyalty. He was devoted to my mother-in-law when she developed mental illness. He is a rock. He has always liked McCain. And now he is beginning to think that maybe he did not have the whole picture. I think he will change his mind over the next month. And they live in Virginia. People like him exist. He is not a fool. And the veil is lifting.
October 7th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
the differences between the two candidates are stark. anyone who remains uncommitted now is too fucking stupid to be allowed to ask questions.
At one time I would have agreed. However here in Texas I’m actually encountering quite a few undecided voters. Who are they? They are called Republicans. I know quite a number of Republicans who, in most elections, would just be as reliably Republican as many of us are Democrat. However for the first time in their lives they are actually taking a big pause as they consider McCain/Palin and many of them are actually honestly undecided. Their lizard brain is still whispering in their ear “vote Republican” as is their preacher (which probably amounts to the same thing). But they are actually pausing to seriously contemplate Obama.
Does this mean they are becoming Democrats? Not hardly. As soon as the Republicans get their shit together and present some younger smarter more exciting Republican they’ll be back in a heartbeat. What they are actually longing for is the Republican Obama that can get them all inspired again.
By contrast, I haven’t met a single Democrat who is anything but enthusiastic about Obama.
So yes, there are plenty of undecided voters out there. Normally we call them Republicans.
Therefore, I do tend to agree with Yglesias that most of the “undecided” voters are probably conservatives of some sort who have become disgruntled with the current Republican party.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:30 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Great site, Good info
viagra