Reconsidering All Things (RAT)
February 15, 2004
by Mike Webb

POLL DRIVEN

Ouch. That’s all RAT has to say after reading last’s month ghastly political prognostications. Sure we had good company, but RAT prides itself on seeing the things not seen by other pundits. However, after that last performance, looks like we need to get some new glasses.

Of course a bad prediction can’t keep a good RAT down, so we’ll blame our mistaken guesses on bad polling and keep going. But this time with an eye on the polls that mislead a country into believing change was on the way. While most news organizations are busy trying to interpret the exit polls, RAT wants to know if any of these polls are reliable in the first place.

Thing: An organization called Real Clear Politics averaged the “Mini-Tuesday” major polls, allocated the undecideds evenly among the candidates and predicted the following* (all in percentage of vote):

Arizona – Kerry 38, Clark 26, Dean 14, Edwards 8, Lieberman 8
Missouri – Kerry 50, Edwards 19, Dean 13, Clark 6, Lieberman 3
Oklahoma – Clark 30, Kerry 27, Edwards 25, Dean 7, Lieberman 6
South Carolina – Edwards 35, Kerry 25, Clark 12, Sharpton 10, Dean 9

According to CNN, the actual final results were:

Arizona - Kerry 43, Clark 27, Dean 14, Edwards 7, Lieberman 7
Missouri - Kerry 51, Edwards 25, Dean 9, Clark 4, Lieberman 4
Oklahoma – Clark 30, Edwards 30, Kerry 27, Lieberman 6, Dean 4
South Carolina - Edwards 45, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10, Clark 7, Dean 5

(*Please note that RAT thinks it’s ridiculous to average polls, and more ridiculous to do it without a margin of error because RAT doesn’t trust any poll with a margin of error more than 4%. However, we used this average because we’re not trying to determine whether Zogby, American Research Group, Time/CNN or Gallup is the best polling authority. We’re just trying to see if these freaking polls are trustworthy at all.)

Reconsideration: And it turns out they are. All the polls correctly picked the winner, and with the exception of Oklahoma, they accurately predicted the top 2 finishers in all the races. Numbers-wise, they were generally within a respectable +/- 4% margin of error of the polls. So from the looks of it, the poll numbers we see are a decent measure of the public’s opinion on the candidates.

However, polling is a very delicate science, and what you ask, when you ask it, and who you ask (likely voters, all voters, registered voters, unregistered voters) can affect the information and accuracy of the data collected. The polls consistently showed Howard Dean with a lead in the first two Democratic primary states, and one month later, Dean has yet to win anything. Can you say grain of salt?

Special interests: President Bush and the Republican National Committee have a new ad criticizing potential Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry for taking loads of special interest money. RAT generally avoids reading or watching political party BS, so we’ll trust the Washington Post story from a couple of weeks ago that says its true. And in the vapid world of tit-for-tat politics, Kerry responded with his own true ad about Bush’s unprecedented, record fund raising from “special interests”.

Your interests: Any politician that utters the words "special interests" without following it with the endorsement of real campaign finance reform isn’t serious at all. People and even corporations have the right to speak and lobby Congress on their own behalf. Buying favors through campaign contributions, while not legal, has been allowed because the whole process is legalized bribery. If both candidates believe it’s a problem, just limit how much anyone can give to a politician and let the government pay for the campaigns, and you’ll reduce the influence of “special interests” just like that. Money doesn’t equal speech in RAT’s book, so limiting the amount people can give does not limit their ability to speak their mind. While real reform could cost a billion dollars, it would allow the people’s voices to be heard above the din of crony capitalists and end some of the cynicism people have about government.

Skull & Bones: RAT finds it very interesting that this election is shaping up to be between two Skull & Bones members. According to Alexandra Robbins, who authored a book on the group, S&B is a very elite club (800 members) run out of Yale that’s “purpose is to get members into positions of power and have those members hire other members into prestigious positions.” S&B was also influential in founding the CIA and many of it’s members are in the intelligence community. Both John Kerry and George W. Bush were one of the 15 people (each year) inducted into Skull & Bones during their college days.

Gotta Drinka Beera: The egalitarian RAT was never a member of a fraternity, and thinks secret societies are silly, strange and elitist. I mean why would straight men want to exclude women from their group anyway? Whatever – RAT has never understood goofy men who thirst for power and never will. But what’s strange about this is both Bush and Kerry are or have challenged the intelligence brotherhood they’re members of. Kerry called for changes in funding for the CIA during his Senate career, and Bush is now blaming his “bad” WMD/Iraq intel on the intelligence community. I don’t generally trust or believe in conspiracy theories (RAT’s worked in government and can assure you most government employees are not savvy enough to run a special op), but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be the society member that’s turning my back on my own spy community.

John Kerry: While this is not a prognostication, it looks like John Kerry is on his way to becoming the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. He’s a smart, decorated war hero who spoke out against the Vietnam war, then went into public service, and has a long, center-left voting record on the books. Democrats should be proud of themselves for nominating him, no?

Anybody But John Kerry: Of all the Democrats who ran for president this season, John Kerry is the most establishment candidate. While that’s not an automatic disqualifier, Kerry comes from a well-to-do family, makes decisions based on politics instead of conscience, and has never led the fight on an issue of importance to his base of supporters. He voted for the Iraq war resolution, for the “Patriot Act”, for the free trade laws, for the balanced budget amendment, for Clinton’s welfare reform and he opposes gay marriage. Hardly the record of a liberal, Kerry looks like another pandering politician who wants to be all things to all people. Is this really the best Democrat to make the case against George Walker Bush? RAT says no, but as last month’s column proved, RAT’s been wrong before.

(Mike Webb is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine)