Blowing Down Gore's House of Straw Polls

Only in America can only thirty-five people gather in a living room to talk politics, cast a vote for their favorite candidates, and find the results of their tiny get-together linked to as a major story on the Drudge Report, a news site that attracts around 14.5 million hits per day. Matt Drudge is a master of titillating or misleading headlines, and Wednesday's story link "Gore Wins Democratic Straw Poll in Arizona" was a good example of Drudge's subtlety. Everything in the headline was technically true. Al Gore did in fact win a straw poll in Arizona. The Drudge headline, however, was apparently selected to create the impression among potential readers that Al Gore won a substantive political victory in a statewide Democratic straw poll in Arizona, when in reality his straw poll victory was neither statewide nor substantive. Forty Democrats from the Scottsdale area gathering in a living room to vote in a straw poll is hardly a sweeping political movement worthy of international media attention, nor can any credible political observer extrapolate from it the eventual outcome of the Arizona Democratic primaries. But don't tell that to Matt Drudge, whose headline gave Gore credibility where none was merited.

The epic tale of Gore's Lilliputian victory in a Scottsdale living room straw poll as championed by Drudge appeared in the Arizona Republic, and the Republic clearly made every effort to report the straw poll results as a genuine story with deep political ramifications not only for Arizona Democrats, but for the national race for the party's nomination as well. However, a careful reading of the article revealed that only thirty-five of the forty Democrats who showed up for the straw poll actually paid the $20 fee to obtain a ballot and vote. Votes for "first choice" and "popularity" were later tallied accurately (no hanging chads in the Southwest), and unannounced but quietly salivating at the prospect candidate Al Gore won the "first choice" vote with 51 percent followed in a distant second place by John Edwards with 17 percent of votes cast. These numbers may seem meaningless, but as they say in TV infomercials, "but wait, there's more!"

We rarely associate the words "Democratic votes" and "calculator" with the words "fun" or "interesting," yet the application of a calculator to the Scottsdale straw poll results generates more entertainment than one would initially think. For example, it was fascinating that Democrats, who have whined for 7 years that the popular vote should count more than electoral votes or percentages reported the Scottsdale straw poll results in, of course, percentages only. No raw vote count totals were provided in the Republic news report. Why? Perhaps because the media can take insignificant poll results and make them sound as if the participants in the poll represented a much larger segment of the overall population than they really did. A handy calculator helps illustrate how this is achieved.

The Arizona Republic reported the vote count as follows:

When tallying the votes, the local party leaders considered both the "first choice" of voters and the "popularity" of candidates.

The popularity vote was important because it showed who voters would chose if Gore does not run.

Gore won the first choice by 51 percent, followed by Edwards with 17 percent, national front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton with 14 percent, Sen. Barack Obama by 9 percent, Sen. Joe Biden by 6 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich by 3 percent.

Edwards won the popularity vote by 29 percent, followed by Gore with 26 percent, Obama with 19 percent, Clinton with 14 percent, Kucinich with 6 percent, Biden with 4 percent and Richardson with 2 percent.

All those double-digit percentages certainly helped readers forget that only 35 people actually participated in this vote. Thus, Al Gore's 51 percent, which when converted to actual votes signified that he was the first choice of a whopping 17.85 actual voters in an Arizona living room, seems much less impressive than merely reporting that he garnered 50 percent of an Arizona straw poll. Perhaps if they find that hanging chad or a pregnant chad gives birth they will find the other 0.15 of a vote.

Likewise, Edwards' second place finish with 17 percent converts to only 5.95 actual votes. However, the big mystery was Bill Richardson, who as Governor of New Mexico and a fellow southwest Democrat, only polled 2 percent, which when converted is only 0.7 of a vote. By reporting Richardson's straw poll showing in percentages rather than vote count, the Arizona Republic performed a small act of sympathetic kindness. When your party holds a straw poll in a neighboring state and you receive only seven-tenths of a vote, it may be finally time to "redeploy" and wait for other career options than the presidency.

Despite a valiant reporting effort by the Arizona Republic and international recognition courtesy of a Drudge Report link, a community straw poll involving thirty-five votes simply could not be taken seriously, especially when compared to the well-organized statewide Republican straw poll held in Iowa and won by Mitt Romney. Romney's opponents and snide media pundits were quick to minimize the perceived importance of Romney's decisive victory in the Iowa straw poll, but perhaps the irrelevance of the Scottsdale Democratic straw poll will serve as a contrast that will bring Romney's success in a larger poll more sharply into focus.

The time fast approaches when Al Gore's performance in straw polls and primaries will signify something substantial and ominous in the realm of electoral politics. The Scottsdale straw poll was not the long-awaited sign of the Al Gore apocalypse upon us. The so-called "Democratic straw poll in Arizona" merely gave one homeowner and thirty-four members of her community a few moments to bask in the global warming of a media spotlight.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore Straw Poll Arizona Democrats Arizona Republic Drudge Report Matt Drudge Presidential Candidates Scottsdale Bill Richardson John Edwards Poll Results

Can Teachers and Professors Hide Personal Bias? AZ State Senator's Bill Would Require It

Is it possible for teachers to be completely objective while teaching history, politics, and other potentially controversial issues in the classroom? Not according to Arizona state Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, AZ, who has introduced a state bill that would require public school teachers to be impartial and not present their personal political or social views to students. Teachers would, of course, retain their First Amendment rights to share their views privately outside of recognized teaching settings.

Predictably, the bill has generated passionate controversy among teachers, school administrators, parents, and even students, as reported in the Arizona Republic. The liberal opposition to the bill argues that it curbs free speech and will discourage teachers from teaching anything about controversial historical issues or current events out of fear of reprisal under the bill’s provisions. They further claim that students will be harmed by a sheltering intellectual climate and that “the classroom is precisely where these kinds of important controversial debates should be taking place,” as stated by the Executive Director of the ACLU in Arizona. Conservative supporters of the bill express concern that children and teens are very impressionable, view their teachers as authorities, and should not be subjected to the personal political or social beliefs of teachers.

Having experienced a tremendous amount of liberal bias and pressure to conform or receive poor grades years ago in graduate school, I gravitate toward supporting a bill of this nature, but I likewise am certain that it will have virtually no efficacy because teachers and professors are only one third of the problem that requires correction: the other two thirds are public school/university administrators and the selected curriculum being taught as authoritative within these schools. Legally requiring teachers or professors to teach impartially out of an approved school district curriculum implies a naïve faith that the curriculum itself is politically or socially objective. As I have described in a previous post, being forced to digest textbooks used in today’s schools is to be force fed a steady diet of history liberally laced with the collective opinions of academia, which is undeniably and overwhelmingly politically liberal. Author David Horowitz’s newest book, Indoctrination U:The Left's War Against Academic Freedom, illustrates the intellectually stifling effect that biased education continues to have on America’s students. If you have children in college or will soon be in that position, read Horowitz's book and discuss with your student what he/she can expect and how to recognize bias in texts and lectures.

In most local school districts throughout the nation, teachers could present only the approved texts and still influence students to adopt liberal views, as there is less fair and balanced presentation in textbooks than one would find on broadcast news or in print newspapers. The professors who write textbooks are notoriously biased to the left and, unlike journalists who feign impartiality, members of academia are proud of their stances and make no claims to objectivity. It is unrealistic to expect school teachers to be held to a teaching standard not similarly applied to college professors who produce texts taught to school children.

The Arizona Republic article included a quote from one college student who supports the proposed bill for the shelter from academic grade penalties often imposed by liberal professors on students known to hold conservative views:

"You might have your own opinions, but don't use a public university where people and taxpayers are paying you to teach," said Hyde, chairman of the Arizona College Republicans. "Don't use (the classroom) as your soapbox and think you're put there to teach me why you think the president is an idiot. That's not your job."

Liberal opponents of the bill argue that students need to be presented with differing viewpoints to facilitate their academic and intellectual growth. This claim, though it sounds rational, ignores the reality that students are not being challenged by a variety of interpretations. The problem is that there is only one item on the academic menu, and it is a stale slab of Euro-socialist anti-American propaganda not fit for consumption without something of opposite flavor available to remove the aftertaste. Some of the teachers quoted in the Republic article expressed concern that they will lose the ability to discuss controversial issues, but this is a red herring. The role of a teacher in discussions or debates of such topics is as a mediator, not as a validator of opinions or as an arbiter as to which viewpoint is right. Even in competitive debate courses, the judge is supposed to declare a winner based on the persuasiveness and construct of argument rather than whether the point of view argued is right or is in harmony with the judge’s personal beliefs.

The Arizona classroom impartiality bill is a noble attempt to correct a problem that is endemic to academia, but also impacts the media and the judiciary. All of these professions theoretically should be populated with objective people dedicated to teaching, reporting, or judging “just the facts,” but human nature is clearly more potent than even the most altruistic desire for objectivity in any of these fields. Perhaps an alternative solution might include required disclosures statements from teachers to their students prior to sharing any personal opinions in the classroom. A similar disclosure from the news media would certainly help the public recognize biased reporting.

Honesty in America would reach astounding levels if we could turn on the CBS Evening News and hear this anchor introduction: “Good Evening, I’m Katie Couric, and I have never voted for a Republican. I believe America brought 9/11 on itself and said so within minutes of the collapse of the second tower. I hate President Bush and believe he is a stupid cowboy. Thank you for choosing to let me influence you to be a liberal like me through my words, body language, and vocal inflections. Now, in today’s news. . .”

We require political candidates to reveal who donates money to their campaigns in order to determine what influences will shape the candidates views. Why not require teachers and the news media to likewise reveal their personal political affiliations so that students and readers can recognize that what they are being taught or are reading has passed through an opinion prism?