Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (2 comments)

Do you really give a hoot what 710 people think?

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (1 fan)   --

opednews.com

   

122,295,345 votes were cast in the 2004 election for presidential candidates, yet Americans seem content to sit listening to the news and actually care what a few Iowa voters think.  I couldn't count the number of times I've heard, or read, that the Democrats now have a three way tie in Iowa, with Obama leading the pack with 28% of the vote based on the latest poll.

 

That may mean something to someone, but I really couldn't care less if 140 people in Iowa prefer Obama over Clinton or Edwards or Barney Fife, for that matter.

 

What 710 people sitting around cornfields in Iowa think about the candidates means virtually nothing to me, yet American voters seem to put so much stock in the Iowa caucuses.

 

Let's take a real look at the latest poll on presidential candidates in Iowa.  The poll consisted of 500 likely Democratic caucus participants and 500 likely Republican caucus participants.  The poll was taken November 25 through November 29 and the participants were asked to identify their pick for president.

 

The top three results in both parties are as follows:

 
REPUBLICANS% ofVotesActual #Of votesDEMOCRATS% ofVotesActual #Of Votes

Huckabee

29%

145

Obama

28%

140

Romney

24%

120

Clinton

25%

125

Giuliani

13%

65

Edwards

23%

115

Total

66%

330

 

76%

380

 

While the top three in the Republican Party received 66% of votes with only 4% of participants undecided, the top three in the Democratic Party received 76% of the votes with 7% undecided.

 

The difference in votes between Obama's 140 and Edwards 115 is only 25 while uncommitted votes represent a total of 35 votes.

 

What I find interesting about the latest poll is the number of actual participants polled.  The October 1-3 2007 poll consisted of 804 participants – 399 from the Democratic Party and 405 from the Republican Party, while the prior poll completed on May 12-16, 2007 consisted of 801 participants – 400 from the Democratic Party and 401 from the Republican Party.

 

These polls may influence some voters in our country, but all they do is leave me with unanswered questions.  Why did the first two polls have a different number of participants from each party?  Where did they come up with the additional 200 participants for the latest poll?  What is the criterion for participating in an Iowa caucus poll?  How would the poll results from the first two polls differ if the additional 200 participants had voted?

When are the voters in this country going to wake up and ignore the polls that only represent a minuscule number of voters, ignore the media hype, ignore the personalities and concentrate on what is important to Americans and that is the candidates position on the issues?

 

Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson are co-owners of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Patricia by Mike Folkerth on Saturday, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:03:17 PM
Misnamed article by Dave Kisor on Saturday, Dec 15, 2007 at 8:56:18 PM