[PLUG-TALK] straw poll - the Michael Robinson effect

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> This is an unscientific poll. 
> 
> There are about 100 people on the plug-talk list.  Michael Robinson
> writes political messages to this list under the apparent assumption
> that it will shift our thinking to his point of view.  This is a
> testable assumption.  While a better test would include the 650
> people on the main plug list, where he sometimes posts political
> stuff, that is not what that list is for.  So we make do with a pool
> of 100 participants, and it would surprise me if this gets 10 responses.
> 
> Let's make the oversimplifying assumption that Michael is a Republican,
> and that the only alternative is Democrat.  This leaves out the Greens
> and Libertarians and others (including me), but it makes the results
> easier to tabulate.  So here is the question:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Does Michael Robinson's political writings make you:
> 
> (1) More likely to work for Republican candidates
> (2) More likely to vote for Republicans (but not otherwise get involved)
> (3) Not increase your political activity one way or another
> (4) More likely to vote for Democrats (but not otherwise get involved)
> (5) More likely to work for Democratic candidates
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Work for" means going to campaign offices to volunteer, going door to
> door, making donations, etc.  The old fashioned stuff that changes vote
> totals significantly, unlike blogging and emails.
>    
> Please answer honestly.  My answer from the list above is (3) shading 
> towards (4),  though in actual fact I spend my efforts on third party
> candidates.  Call me a 3.4 .
> 
> If you are already the kind of person that is spending almost every
> available hour working for one of those political parties, or you
> wouldn't vote for the other party if your life depended on it, or
> you have more important things to do with your time than participate
> in politics, then your answer is probably around (3), regardless of
> how you feel about what Michael writes.  I expect a lot of (3.X)s
> from most honest folk.
> 
> I'm not holding this poll to shut Michael up, but to help him learn
> something about the effectiveness of his presentation. 
> 
> Sneering aside, Republican-leaning Americans are responsible for
> much of our food, employment, and protection, and we would all
> benefit from hearing from the less bombastic of them, if only to
> make our own messages more compelling to them.  But diatribes can
> reduce communication, not increase it, and I am curious whether
> that is happening here.
> 
> Keith
> 

1. I would say I'm a

3.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ...

2. I don't think Michael Robinson has declared a "party affiliation" in
this thread. So the assumption of him being a "Republican" isn't one I
accept.

3. I have never voted for a third-party candidate. I don't trust them;
they almost invariably have *personal* agendas, no matter what they may
say and no matter how appealing their "platforms" might be. Their
platforms are usually simplistic at best, and they tend to feed on
dissent about the electoral process, rather than on the issues of the time.

And that includes local elections as well as national ones. Perhaps if I
had lived in Teddy Roosevelt's time, I would have voted for him when the
Republicans dumped him. But I have to admit that Taft turned out "OK" in
many respects. :)



-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P), WOM

I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.