Or this could go the other way. Maybe you are 100% gonna vote for the R but, at the same time, you wish to 'register your disapproval' of Moore's behavior so you can still feel like a Good Person. How do you do that? Say 'less likely to'. (Even though you're not)
-
Show this thread
-
In this way we can see poll-results that 1) don't really reflect the logical content of how the question/answer options are phrased and 2) bounce around with mood and a social need to emote/express certain things.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
During the 2016 election, a lot of people placed a lot of stock in the blips and bounces of the Trump-v-Clinton polls. Trump got a bounce from the 'Comey letter', etc. But if you buy the 'mood' dynamic I state above, that bounce meant nothing. Nada.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
A probable dynamic was that X% were Gonna Vote Trump all along, but only X-Y% would ever admit it in a poll, which made his support (inferred from polls) look less than it was, but then the 'Comey letter' prompted some of that Y% to be more honest. Etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
In the case of this Moore poll it will be used to infer that 'Moore voters are cool with pedophilia' or something, but that's exactly false. Moore voters - like all voters - are *tribal*, and this was the only tribally-correct answer option offered to them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
You can't set up a winner-take-all democratic system and *not* expect people to attempt to maximize the apparent forcefulness and steadfastness of their tribal affiliation, by the way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Like, there's nothing to be gained by ceding tribal territory & telling a pollster 'gee this makes me less likely to support the R'. Even in cases where it does.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
I'm not saying polls are meaningless, of course, just that you must interpret them cautiously, and don't assume the surface logical content of the question/answers is what the respondent was, internally, answering.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Similarly, you can't track a poll trajectory over time and assume that it genuinely reflects actual voter preference moving this way or that. It all depends.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, so that's how you get a rock-ribbed R telling a pollster that learning Moore possibly molested a 14-year-old 'makes him more likely to' vote for Moore. No, it didn't. He's just projecting his steadfastness for the R Tribe and distaste for allowing D gains. Rationally.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread
Alternative - he's answering "does the REPORTING about Moore make you more likely to vote for him?" with "yes" because a major motivation is distaste for "lying with the truth" style of reporting. Double points because this is actually another ex of "lying with truth" reporting
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
True; many will decode this question - and indeed, just the very *context* that they're being asked it at all - as an invitation to express either approval or disapproval of Using This Reporting For This Purpose. And to register 'disapprove', they have to answer one way.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.