Poll Dancing

I posted last summer about political Tabiyas, applying to politics the ancient chess term describing a known position that is arrived at after a series of moves that are well analyzed and predictable. I suggested the same is true in politics, and went on to mention several-all of which we saw kick in prior to Labor Day.

After watching the hyper-energetic fluttering on various Virginia Political Blogs (a/k/a VaPoBlogs), I think we can add another one-which we will call Poll Dancing.

This is not the type practiced on spotlight stages in seedy buildings for $1.00 offerings. No, this dancing is done in broad daylight by bright people who want to validate results they like and invalidate results they don't.

Now when I was a kid, polling meant asking Grandaddy Kline who would win an election. He was a town councilman who had a keen grasp of human nature and frailty, which combined with a tendency toward brutally objective analysis almost always correctly predicted electoral winners.

Then statistics and telephoning and computers kicked in...but even then it was just a matter of comparing the numbers from the poll published in July, and then in August, and then in September, and try to discern the trend.

But nowadays analysts from the campaigns to the MSM to individual citizens can get their hands not just on polls but the questions asked the summary of responses...and will trumpet their take on the numbers.

And that is Poll Dancing

You can see it all over the VaPoBlogs, but best of all at NLS, where Ben and Not Gretchen Bulova (NGB) post about every poll they can find that reflects a Virginia election. It is amazing...they post a new poll, and the hits and posts start coming!

Example: This AM, NGB posted a new Reuters poll that has George Allen leading Jim Webb by 48-37. Response Post #1 was at 0956. By 1051, there were 32 posts. Excellent traffic for any site (well, except for Kos and the like). However, no matter what the poll results, almost all responses are easily categorized

If the analyst likes the numbers...the results are proof from God above that their champion will win a crushing and righetous victory, and prove their candidate should keep doing what he/she is doing.

If the analyst does not like the numbers...the results are fatally flawed due to bad method, bad sample, bad questions, were taken too early to adequately reflect public reaction to a recent event, and at very least provide openings to attack the perceived shortcomings of the opponent.

As the election day gets closer, and more polls come out, make plans to enjoy poll dancing of an even greater and more energetic scale! And the best thing about it is...you don't need to be carrying $1.00 bills to enjoy the show.

***************

UPDATE

Oh, heavens, I forgot one...let's not forget the the dreaded Margin of Error defense, which typically allows the candidate who is behind to write off the results by saying (for example), if candidate X is behind by five points, but the margin of error is six, then they could actually be winning the race! Of course, that also means they could be getting pummeled, but somehow that possibility never is mentioned.

Thanks to the good folks at RaisingKaine and their take on the lastest USA Today poll on Allen-Webb for remininding me of this!