A cluster of pointless info

Emerson College included the following sets of favorability stats among its 25 July polling (2.9/3.0) of swing states. I almost included similar findings in Saturday's roundup of national and state polls, but either ineffable exasperation with cluelessly cranky voters or my editorial judgment of "too much information" in one post prevented me from doing so. More influential was the editorial aspect of my reluctance (since I'm nearly always exasperated). These stats deserve isolated blocks of attention.

Pop quiz: Which is the most significant in the information provided? A) Harris is 1% more disliked in Georgia than she is in Michigan; B) five states harbor about as many far-right loons as they do rational citizens; C) roughly equal stats for the sane and psychotic presidential nominees suggest America has teetered into Crazy; and D) Harris' unfavorable ratings are equivalent to Biden's because most voters are ignorant of how the administration has benefited them. IMPORTANT: More than one answer may be correct.

Harris voters would circle B.C and D because those are the correct answers. Trump voters would return the quiz uncompleted, having been futilely baffled by both the question and the answers provided. And therein lies the fundamental problem with American democracy in 2024. About half of all U.S. citizens couldn't pass a U.S. citizenship test, let alone ace a simple pop quiz on either reality or reading comprehension.            

As for the genuine need of including the favorability question in political opinion surveys, there isn't one. The question is pointless, the answers, meaningless. Indeed my memory banks are always triggered by the year 1993. Some overeager pollster asked voters during the week following President Clinton's inauguration if they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Vice President Al Gore.

He barely had had time to locate the men's washroom in the Executive Office Building. And yet respondents were being asked how he was doing job-wise and, effectively, if they'd vote for him as POTUS. This however was no problem for the phone-call recipients. Gore's ratings broke down strictly along partisan lines, just as favorable/unfavorable ratings do today. They have virtually nothing to do with a voter's reason for choosing one or the other based on how the politician is doing.

So if a metaphorical Jesus were Democrats' 2024 presidential nominee, 53% of Arizonans and mostly Christians would have an unfavorable opinion of him, as would 51% of Christian Pennsylvanians, because they'd all prefer the multi-indicted sociopathic narcissist with strong psychotic tendencies — because he has an R in front of his name.     

I understand this partisan reflex, up to a point. Let's also say a metaphorical Beelzebub is the Democratic Party's 2024 nominee running against Donald Trump. Most Dems would, in turn, say they'd be compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils — the one with cloven hooves and a trident. But there's a mammoth distinction between the two parties: the Beelzebub option is an abstraction; the other is quite real.

Democrats would never allow such an overtly sinister pol to rise that far within. Hence the question of whether they'd ever vote for a Trumplike character merely because of his D designation is, as noted, rather pointless.  

Comments

[Anne J]

This reminds me of the time about 20 years ago when people were asked about which candidate, Bush or Kerry they would want to have a beer with. I thought the question was pointless and stupid.

How many average Americans get to have a beer with their president? And in the case of Bush, how does one have a beer with him when he's a recovering alcoholic?

I do think likeability factors to a point, but some of us just want a good leader, not a drinking buddy.

[VoiceOfReason]

Are Americans certifiably crazy? Well, about 2% of the voters support a guy who once played "Weekend at Bernie's" with a baby bear, which, you have to admit, is next level weird.