Poll information can be very deceptive. The very manner in which questions are selected and phrased can profoundly influence the results. That makes them at the very least problematic, and at worst unreliable and therefore utterly useless - unless they are deliberately employed to sway public opinion one way or the other. In that later case they may not be useless (at least not to the proponent) but, in this writer’s opinion, they become even more problematic.
Is it possible, then, to find out what people are really thinking without goading or prodding them with skillfully and often deceptively phrased questions? How do you avoid what we shall call the "questioner's bias" for purposes of this article?
There is indeed a way, and the Internet makes it possible. What if you searched the online keyword-demand for the names of the current presidential candidate roster on both sides of the aisle? The data you'd get back would most certainly be "unscientific" - but that's exactly what is needed. Raw, unfiltered data. The real demand for candidate names as exhibited by actual online searches on the Internet, without goading or prodding. There would be no loaded questions to ask, no way to manipulate anything before it comes back. The only possible kind of manipulation would be the researcher's personal interpretation of the results - after they come back.
So I conducted a little experiment.
Before we begin, though, I have to tell you how I personally filter information. That means I have to tell you how and what I think so you can filter it out as my personal bias. I count myself as an enemy of tyranny in any of its forms - whether individual or collective, socialist or neocon, whether political, social, judicial, or religious. I value freedom of conscience and individual Liberty - if it's combined with individual responsibility. I prefer laissez-faire economics to the endless tinkering and manipulation by so-called "experts" who have no accountability and who couldn't give a whit about the consequences of their (usually) ill-conceived machinations. I believe in limited government a la the founders of this country (minus Alex Hamilton), and I believe war is justified only in defense of ones country - but then should be fought all out, without taking prisoners. You should also know that I am not a Republican and, oh yes, I favor building a reverse-iron curtain to our South, keeping out whoever has no right to be here - according to our criteria, not theirs.
The data below is completely unfiltered, and I make my interpretation of it as obvious as possible. The reason I tell you this is not because I consider it in any way "important" or because I presume that you care. I only tell you what I think so you can effectively filter it out.
The system I used to gather the reported data is based on Wordtracker.com, an internet search data provider that is most often used by online marketers to ferret out market niches that might be worth exploiting. However, I did not use Wordtracker itself, but another system which uses Wordtracker's data in determining the demand for any given search-keyword or key-phrase (combination of words) used on the Internet in appreciable quantity. That system costs money, which I am sure you don't want to spend just to verify my statements, but you can use Wordtracker's free trial.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).