Analyzing the Analyzers 

The poll I liked best was the one back in February of this year that had the Undecided at 6%, down from about 10% months earlier.  

By Seymour Gelber
Columnist             

Politically we are a totally divided nation; yet the excitement of producing an election winner, notwithstanding heavy discord, is a good sign for our way of life. Aren’t you relieved though that the election season at long last has come to an end? This column, written the Friday before the votes were cast, is a commentary on how it all looked to one observer. No worry, I don’t intend to pick the winners. 

The star of pre-election obviously was the media. Candidates were only necessary adjuncts, like a nail to a hammer. The never-ending polls, at least a half-dozen of them, kept barraging our telephones.

The pollsters have literally made polling a scientific exercise. Each has his own technique, and each validates his own process. All of them claim a 3 to 4% margin of error that hopefully leaves some room for miscalculation. One of the poll-takers is sure to hit the result right on the head and thereafter be acclaimed a forecasting genius. That’s scientific polling? Looks more like a lottery.

The pollsters muffing the final score will point to hanging chads, malfunctioning machines, uncounted ballots and voting for Pat Buchanan in error. (Sorry, that was in 2000.) The surprising thing will be that none of these mishaps will occur in Florida on Election Day (I hope). Then there are the mini-TV polls, mostly childish, something like asking you to call in your vote:  “Is Cheney too grumpy?” or “Is Edwards too bubbly?”  Anything to fill the half hour.

The poll I liked best was the one back in February of this year that had the Undecided at 6%, down from about 10% months earlier. This same New York Times-CBS poll taken the week before the election (Monday, October 25) showed but 5% Undecided. Just think about that figure for a moment. In the nine-month period from February to Election Day, with millions and millions of dollars spent by both parties, only one percent of the voters were persuaded to have a change of heart. Incredible, isn’t it?

Now, I don’t want to dwell on it, but is the message there that the final vote was cast in cement, maybe a year ago? If so, what has all the noise been about? Nobody pays attention to the Miami Herald endorsement. Or that Bush wears Teflon in regard the calamitous post-war Iraq situation. Or that Kerry’s heroics in Vietnam sounds like Grandpa telling World War II tales. What really prompts the voter is still unknown to mankind.

Cable TV easily takes the prize. I’ve always viewed CNN, with their twenty-four hour news, as a personal blessing. Their never-ending news marathon not only updates every fifteen minutes of the candidate’s life, but also examines the kind of hair shampoo Teresa Heinz Kerry uses and how Laura Bush stamped those books in her best library days.  Worthy things to know.

No other event in history has produced a greater cacophony of jarring sounds and shrill voices than has CNN’s Crossfire. Mixing combustibles like Bob Novack and

James Carville, plus a couple of their talking machine sidekicks, are ear-drum busters. They go at each other with arms flailing, sarcasm flying, while their hapless guests sit there agape. Enough already. 

Those bell-ringers are usually followed every half hour with a house expert, who brings the audience up to the moment on the count to date in Montana, a state less populous than downtown Flagler Street on a rainy day. Here the newscaster, speaking with full-voiced authority, explains the Electoral College vote, more particularly the significance of Montana’s three votes. An explanation no one really understands. The newscaster then adds that the Electoral count changes every day, so tune in tomorrow. What? A lot of expertise is always welcome, but how much can the viewer absorb?

For a pre-election gathering, Edith and I had a group of friends over and I decided to turn the little cocktail party into my own polling venture. All Democrats, I felt comfortable with the results: Nine for Kerry and one for Nader. I invited the Nader guy to take a walk.  Don’t need disruptive guys in my home. Did I have a margin of error in my polling? Probably.

Just to gain an impartial view, I approached a non-partisan visitor in our apartment, grandson Max, age six months and asked him. He grimaced at the Bush name and gurgled at Kerry. That was good enough for me. My margin of error was satisfied.

All my polling guests agreed the best thing happening in America was the Dolphins first win, a week before. None thought the result of the election would be Armageddon. All seemed a bit miffed that I had offered only peanuts with their drinks, no canapés. Sorry, fellows.

And so it goes.