20 August 2006
The cover of the magazine shows Hillary's face, and underneath it only two choices, "LOVE HER" and "HATE HER." Purchasers of the magazine are invited to check one or the other option, and mail in the cover.
Since I will not be buying a copy of Time to register my choice, I will cast my vote here instead. And I vote for "LOVE HER."
No, I would not vote for Hillary, for any office. That's because I oppose her positions in matters of governance, and do not trust her to make decisions on my behalf. But I do love Hillary Clinton, and I hate no man, woman, or child. I am disappointed in Time's cavalier use of "love" and "hate" as a sort of shorthand, meaning approval or disapproval of the political opinions or actions of a human being. Is anyone else disgusted by this?
Political speech being debased almost by definition, and polling as a form of political speech being the most debased of all, I think I'm more frustrated than disgusted what else could I expect?
And on the real poll, as Gleeson puts it:
... the one conducted with real statistical sampling. This poll didn't ask the respondents whether they "love" or "hate" Hillary, but that didn't stop [Ana Marie] Cox from pronouncing that "Republicans hate her." She knows this because most Republicans wouldn't vote for Hillary. This poll did ask some pretty pointless questions.
As do most of them, I suspect, and I think Xrlq might agree:
Recently we've read that 38% of Americans polled believe the U.S. government is withholding
Time for my own poll. Is there any question so wacky that one-third of the population will not answer it in the affirmative?
I have long believed that people are fed up with the endless stream of polls, polls, polls, and will tell pollsters literally anything just to shut them the hell up. You want to know what the electorate thinks? Watch what they do in November.Posted at 9:27 AM to Political Science Fiction