Don't believe those polls -- I hope

It was just the last time I posted that I said I didn't want to talk about the election anymore. And I'm not … going to talk about the candidates (well, a tiny bit). I said I might talk about some of the ideas behind the election. Here are a few:

Polling:
There are strong reasons not to believe national polls that say the candidates are even.

* Many polls feel they have to balance the percentage of Dem, Indie, and GOP voters. But the Dems have been registering millions of new voters and others are fleeing the GOP in record numbers. Besides, the GOP started off with a smaller membership.
* Their definition of a "likely" voter is probably outmoded.
* New and young voters, likely to vote Dem, either don't have a landline available for a pollster to call or are too busy to spend the time for a lengthy polling interview.
* Traditional media has The Greatest Political Team Assembled In The History Of The Universe and they need a close race for you to give up your football.
* No pundit has a clue about how energized young people and minorities are over Obama.

That said, it is impossible to underestimate the stupidity of the American voter (an example in the linked article). And then there are those infamous voting machines. All that is enough to make this election season scary. This does bring to mind the accuracy of Karl Rove's predictions of the 2006 election.


Hypocrisy is only bad when it is improperly used. -- George Bernard Shaw

The party that used to claim that a woman's place was at home taking care of her children has rallied around a woman, now claiming that to delve into her past is sexist. That proves they don't understand the word -- she should get the same scrutiny as McCain, Obama, and Biden. That and other layers of hypocrisy are explored in Anna Quindlen's column in Newsweek.


A fun video of McCain and Obama, less than 2 minutes long. Somebody is really clever with film editing. I've heard the creator has done this kind of thing with other pairs of rivals.



Questions for politicians about science:

1. Will you staff your scientific advisory positions with actual scientists?
2. Will you allow government scientists to publish without review from political personnel?
3. How will you improve science and math education?
4. Should the government fund basic science research (which industry labs are no longer doing)? Should the government do such research?
5. What will your policy for sex-education -- abstinence only, no funding at all, or medically accurate sex ed?

Will these questions get asked … or answered?


Alas, one serious mention about a candidate. It seems McCain interfered with a DEA investigation of his wife's drug abuse and theft. This interference warrants an investigation. I've had enough of Bush cover-ups. In this case the GOP candidate really is McSame. Imagine the storm if it was Michelle Obama instead of Cindy McCain.