defending polls

There's a burger joint on Wabash that has a Hilary and a Trump burger.  I think the Hilary is a little healthier and the Trump is more on the junk food side.  Outside they have a sign listing how many of each burger they sold the day before.  The big girl is leading two to one.  Well it is a blue state after all, though personally I might go for the Trump since as long as I am going burger I might as well go full bore junk food.

But I am going to defend polls.  There are rules to doing a poll, and the major polls have professional people doing them.  I am talking presidential polls here, there are other polls that pop up from time to time, what do you think about guns, abortion, Nicki Minaj's butt (back for a swan song)?  Often these are sponsored by a group who has a strong opinion and they can indeed word it to slant it,

I'm just talking about presidential polls which I have been watching like a hawk, and they are not all over the place, they move up and down but generally they all move together.  If the big girl drops points in one poll she probably will also drop points in another taken the same day.  There are also state polls which are mainly conducted in swing states. The best way to watch these is to notice which way that same poll went the last time they took it.

What good are they?  Well they are good for the politicians to indicate which way they should trim their sails, which is looked down on so they deny that they do it, but of course they do.
Hilary certainly, Trump probably not very much since he doesn't know what he is going to say until after he says it.  And Uncle Ken and political junkies love them because we love the whole game of politics and it is a way of seeing how things are going, a point jump or two is like hearing that that utility infielder beat out a ground ball and is now standing on first with only one out.

It has nothing to do with how you believe.  It tells you what other people probably believe at a specific time, but I don't see what that has to do with what you think,.  I suppose it could change a vote for instance if you hated the two but were voting for one as the lesser of two evils and you discovered that the guy who can't spell Aleppo was rising in the polls you might decide to vote for him.


What Beagles said about the cold war reminds me of what I said about the sixties as an era of moral clarity, you knew where you stood and you knew where your enemy stood.


When I was in high school I was in the debate club.  There were rules and judges and you won or you lost on points.  Of course the presidential debates are not Marquis of Queensbury affairs.  The sole object is to turn heads and get votes  The lighting and blah blah blah are the same for both candidates, it's part of the game and it is something they have to deal with.  Some say the better they navigate all these obstacles the sharper they are and therefore will be a better president.  I'm not so sure of that, but everybody knows that is how the game is played, and if you don't want to play it don't run for president.

And using a photo of your opponent that makes him look crazy or stupid is a time honored campaign tactic.  Since the Cubs were getting killed by the hapless buckos I tuned into Fox and there was that Trumpette honcho with the kewpie doll voice whining about Hilary putting up attack ads on Dumbo, and Megan Kelly, who can be pretty sharp when she chooses to be, was all like, well what did you think she was going to do.

I don't know about reading the transcript.  There is so much more in the live action.  Were you eating a bowl of stale popcorn while reading it?