Senate Candidate Wants to Ban Polling 206
Masker writes "This is just too funny. Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois, who is running against Democrat Barack Obama, wants to ban political polling for 'a certain period' before the election, since such polls are 'manipulative and degrading and damaging to our political system.' Could his opinion be influenced by a recent poll that shows Keyes trails by 45 percentage points behind Obama?" Could be. But it could also be influenced by the fact that polls are often wrong; they influence how people vote (people are less likely to vote for someone who "doesn't have a chance"), and polls get reported on more than issues, which can't be good for anyone except the pollsters and whoever happens to be leading the polls.
And? (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it the duty of every good citizen to try to influence how others vote? What are we supposed to do, lock ourselves in a political cage for 6 months before every election so as not to influence other voters? Cool, we can all go to the polls with no idea what the issues are we're voting for. Oh wait, I forgot, this is bipartisan politics, there are no issues.
Other reasons he's behind in the polls? (Score:5, Interesting)
It should be noted that Alan Keyes isn't FROM Illinois, he is merely running [washingtonpost.com] in the Senate race. I don't think that in itself is bad, but it is probably one of the many reasons he is trailing in the polls.
I seem to remember Keyes once saying that people from out-of-state SHOULDN'T run for a state office, but I can't find that quote now, so maybe I'm just spreading nasty rumors. But it's ok, because I fufilled my duties.
So Alan Keyes, another Republican who wants to control things. There was once a day when Republicans were about NOT controlling things, but that time is long gone.
Commentary (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree, polls are bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perot, Dole, Clinton race.. I was working in a small retail store. The owner (my boss) talked for weeks of voting for Perot (after all Perot was a bidnessman)... I watched the store while he went to vote. He came back and blew my mind by stating "I voted for Clinton, because he is going to win anyway" (this is what I call the football game mentality of polls ... he wanted to be a "WINNER")
Of course after that I always thought of him as a real winner ! :)
I firmly beleived polls should be blacked out at some time period before the actual election day
Personaly, I can wait until the next day to find out the results.. .especialy if it encourages people to vote for who they "really" wanted.
regards
dbcad7
Alan Keyes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why anyone takes this loon seriously is mindblowing. This is the guy that called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger for moving to New York to run for the Senate and then moved to Illinois to do the same. I guess this is just par for the course for the GOP these days though. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to help this guy win against Obama. There's no contest.
As for polls, who cares. It's better than 24/7 coverage of IBM typewriters and 30+ year old war stories.
Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls? (Score:2, Interesting)
thats what politicians do... enact legislation to raise their pay/retirement/benefits and screw over everyone else except the rich. this is true for both the republican AND the democratic party, they just cater to differing subsets of the rich. any candidate running in this important of an election is in someone's pocket. such is life.
that being said i am from illinois and am completely against someone running for an office when they do not even live in the area the office is supposed to serve.... but i also think that all politicians should be limited to a single term except in extenuating(sp?) circumstances.
Re:polls are often wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Alan Keyes... (Score:3, Interesting)
He's got a strange kind of intellectual honesty--I believe he's brought up that comparison to Hillary himself several times in his Illinois campaign. He believes what he's saying and always manages to make a fairly convincing argument for it.
It's just too bad that what he says is complete madness. Calling Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner because she loves a woman? It may be a logically consistent point of view, Alan, but it's still a fucking monstrously bigotted point of view. Even though it was clear from the start that Obama would win, I was still excited to here Keyes was going against him. But that excitement turned to sickness when I heard that Cheney sound bite.
1996 Alan Keyes would have been an entertaining nemesis for Obama. He was a social conservative, but he was also rather liberatarian. What was so interesting about him was how his speeches managed to tie that apparent contradictions together into a coherent ideology. He was a smart fellow, and I wish he would have made the same conversion to semi-reasonability that Pat Buchanan has made now that Bush has led Republicans into the seas of madness. But, I should have known, the neoconservative fantasies of the Iraq war are exactly the sort insanity-as-idealism that appeals to him. I hope this campaign is the last we hear of Keyes.
Kwazy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:He isn't all their (Score:2, Interesting)
Where were all the pro-gay-marriage politicians before last year? Where were the elected officials scrambling to be the first on the block to have gay marriages? Why is the US the only country being called a primitive throwback for not having gay marriage? What nations had gay marriage last year? This year?
bah (Score:5, Interesting)
Why he even agreed to enter this race is amazing, and the fact that the state Republican Party saw fit to pull him instead of the number two Primary winner (after Jack Ryan's campaign imploded over relatively irrelevant allegations from a contentious divorce) is a mystery to those of us who live here. The #2 guy was Jim Oberwies, a well known (in Chicagoland anyway) conservative dairy owner, who was a completely viable candidate--easily with more connection to the residents of Illinois than Keyes, and easily conservative enough to be electable with the more conservative downstate electorate.
All Keyes entry does is prove that all the negative rhetoric about Hillary not really being from NY is just so much hot air on the part of the GOP. He's clearly going to lose, and I can't think of any of the republicans I know here who want to vote for him given his public record as a lunatic and a jerk. Being behind 45 points in the polls is probably accurate given the distaste for the man here, regardless of the accuracy of polls in general.
Re:Kwazy (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, wait. Now I know... Republicans want to show that they can scrape up a token as well as the democrats can. Okay, so it IS racist... So much for content of your character trumping the color of your skin. Alan Keyes is a major-league non-electable nutball. He's playing this for publicity because the more insanely right-wing religiously-bigoted things he can say, the more his books and radio show appearances sell to his base, his paying audience. So it's a symbiotic relationship, uh, sorta.
The shame of it is the national Republican party could have done a LOT more for REAL racial harmonization of the party by backing Herman Cain [cainforussenate.org] here in good old Georgia. I voted for him in the primary because he's the best conservative candidate. He happens to be black. They've set themselves back a fair piece with ol' Alan up there stirring up the yankees.
The first black president will be a conservative Republican...
There is another Senate Candidate in Illinois (Score:3, Interesting)
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...let Badnarik debate [badnarik.org]...
Ban exit polling (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
What this means is that Government (and it's all of its various branches) can not even appear to prefer one religion over another. This includes allowing any religious displays. How would you like passages from the Koran in Arabic posted in the courtroom where you were on trial? (or for the PC among us, a religion different from your own) What if your local mayor decided to plant a giant gold Buddha on the front lawn of town hall? That would be seen as a massive waste of tax money, and rightly so.
I'd like to point out the God isn't mentioned in our constitution either. Our founders were mostly influenced by enlightenment philosophy.
I recommend you have look at The Jefferson Bible [wikipedia.org] Where he specifically eliminates all supernatural events, and considers Jesus a philosopher, not god.
Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh, but it is. Do we want to be in the business of making things illegal because somebody believes there is a possibility it could lead to something else? What you're proposing is that not only should congress not pass laws against/for religion, but that it should also be restrained from having *anything at all* to do with individual religions. This would include tax breaks for religious charities, and other services that religions do provide. I'm not sure if we want to go that route. Religion in society plays a very important role, whether you believe it or like it or not. I don't think the government can just ignore that.
If a public religious display has no appearance of authority, why do people feel the need to place them in front governmental locations?
Well, if you're Christian and building a court-house, you may be inspired by your upbringing. In your mind you think of all that exemplifies a court house, law, etc. And you think of the 'original 10 laws' given by your God. Seems pretty natural to me (even as a non-christian).
I aknowledge your 'individual' vs. 'using power of office' differences. But I think what we differ on is whether something as benign as the 10 commandments on a court-house steps is indeed an over-reach of ones power in office. It declares no laws, changes no rules in society, imparts no taxes, and enforces no fines. I can feel free to disagree with them (and I do with several), and receive no punishment. I can kiss my neighbors wife on Sunday while taking the lords name in vain and chanting a pagan prayer on the steps of the court-house!
Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well as a (nominal) christian it seems very unnatural to me. I am not inspired by a christian architects upbringing, nor should the American Taxpayer be required to support his religious leanings. We have a symbol for justice, and she is blind for a reason. Our courts uphold the laws of man, not god, and that's how I would like to keep it.
To be honest with you, I have considered taking up the position of eliminating the tax breaks that religions get on the grounds that giving them requires the Government to determine what is a religion vs. what is a cult. This makes the US Government the de facto and de jure arbiter of what religion is and is not, which to my mind directly contradicts the letter and spirit of the constitution. While religion plays an important societal role, it is not the governments job to promote it.
As you correctly point out there are many positive contributions that religious organizations provide, making this a hard idea to sell.
What 'The Economist' Says About Keyes. (Score:3, Interesting)