There is a sustained debate in American political circles about polling validity and alleged overreliance. Critics fear politicians will abandon principles and pander to the so-called 'median voter,' sacrificing constituencies. Some critics label polling largely unreliable, calling data-driven campaigns a racket that lets consultants scam candidates and donors. A practical objection notes that if polling truly failed, practitioners and funders would abandon it. Polling often aims to probe why people favor or oppose policies and to inform strategic messaging rather than mechanically offering whatever immediate preferences polls surface. Polls sometimes miss absolute accuracy but pollsters routinely issue disclaimers.
There's a perpetually simmering debate in the chattering classes of American politics over the validity of polling, or more precisely, the perceived overreliance on polling. This discourse is most common among ideologues who fear that politicians and their advisers will happily sell out the cause in an unwholesome pursuit of that soulless tyrant the "median voter," even though that involves the abandonment of principles and constituencies. And it's exacerbated, of course, whenever polls fail
Supposedly, the way you make a successful political campaign is that you go out and you ask people what they want, and then you make your message based on that. Except that's bullshit. It doesn't work. Politely put, the data-based approach to politics is based on a fallacious understanding of the world. Not so politely put, it's a racket for political consultants so they can scam hapless hacks and wealthy donors.
Collection
[
|
...
]