What would happen if there were no pre-election polls?

It might not be good news for some candidates.  For others, it could actually help their chances.

The first 2016 Republican Presidential debate is a case in point.  Missing the first debate gives a pretty negative impression to prospective voters.

The “winners”…

Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and barely edging in, Gov. John Kasich

The “losers”…

Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsay Graham, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore.

Being left out of the first debate might not be fatal to their candidacy, but it would be hard to argue that it is helpful.  Really, shouldn’t voters have the opportunity to hear from a candidate who just recently entered the race, like Jindal?  It might be understandable that the media would want to eliminate a few candidates so the stage isn’t so crowded, but is that fair to the candidates… and voters?

“Polling data” can have the effect of “telling us” who we should vote for.  At the very least, it has an influence on who people vote for, since they don’t want to “waste” their vote.  I am not suggesting that we should eliminate polling, but it could change the dynamics of many races if candidates were evaluated based on their records and positions rather than their standings in the polls.

At the end of the day, the best defense for voters who are concerned about making the right choice is to do some personal research and get to know the candidates.  Then cast a vote for the BEST candidate, not the one who is ahead in the polls.

THINK… then vote!

 

***Gordon Howie is an author and CEO of Life and Liberty Media***

     “It’s not about right or left, it’s about Right or Wrong.”

 

 

 

We need your help:

• Pray
• Make a small (or large) donation
• “friend” me on facebook for daily updates
• SHARE the articles on this site with your network