The New York Times is featuring a bit of a dodgy survey. For a national survey, it's sample is painfully small - only 601 registered voters (671 overall) and 281 Democratic primary voters. The poll was also conducted on Thursday, Friday and Saturday which is prone to aberrant results due to weekend volatility.
Regardless, they decided to put it on the front page of the national paper so let's take a look. I found two series of questions particularly interesting.
46. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, how much will the Reverend Wright issue matter to you in deciding who to vote for in November - a lot, some, not much or not at all?
47. What about most people you know? If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, how much will the Reverend Wright issue matter to them in deciding who to vote for in November - a lot, some, not much or not at all?
In the first question, 24% said that Wright would be a factor with 11% saying "a lot." This only drops to 23% among Democratic primary voters with 9% saying "a lot." Considering, he's not picking up voters from Obama, a quarter of the electorate is rather disturbing.
It gets worse. The Times poll does one thing right. They ask the question about your people you know. Because no one is a racist or thinks about these things racially, but your neighbor, your r co-worker, your cousin, well that's a different story. And the numbers tell that story.
When asked about your most people you know, 44% of all respondents and 41% of Democratic primary voters said that Wright would be a factor. So depending on how well people know their neighbors and how well they know or how much they want to tell the truth about themselves, a quarter to almost half of the electorate could be casting their vote in some part based on Rev. Wright.
Obama's numbers are holding up in the polling. That does not bode well, however. Polls don't pick Presidents and respondents know that.
No comments:
Post a Comment