Public Option Polling Is Puzzling

I am not Nate Silver. I won't pretend to understand polling practices, how questions are formulated, or how the data is used to either prove or disprove a particular point of view. But, one thing I do know is that polls only show how people view a specific subject at one point in time and DO NOT dictate how people will act. However, in the modern age, certain subsets of people do base their action around polling data. These people completely lack the ability to think for themselves, and I can only hope that it is a small grouping of the public.

But my question is this: How can different pollsters pose questions about one particular subject and get such massively divergent favorable and non favorable numbers.

Case in point, Quinnipiac shows a plurality of people approve of a public option in healthcare reform.

However, when the same topic is tackled by Rasmussen, the numbers tell a different story.

So the question stands, how can we trust one number versus another?

Oh, The Delicious Irony

Honestly, it isn't fair for blacks to refer to a man like Kenneth Gladney as an "Uncle Tom" because he is black and takes up conservative ideals, as that label is predicated on many factors that they may not realize at first glimps. Maybe he honestly ( and foolishly ) believes in them. But, what can be found out later will allow all of us to formulate a more concise, more accurate, opinion of a man ( or woman ) and how they are using the tactics fed to them, even if it is against their own self-interest.

The Washington Monthly reports:

Yesterday, about 200 conservative activists held a protest outside the SEIU office in St. Louis. Gladney was there -- bandaged and in a wheelchair -- as a featured guest. Some of the activists held signs that read, "Don't Tread on Kenny." Reader R.D. alerted me to this tidbit in the local news account of the protest:

Gladney did not address Saturday's crowd of about 200 people. His attorney, David Brown, however, read a prepared statement Gladney wrote. "A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too." Brown read. "This should never happen in this country."

Supporters cheered. Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance.

Wait, the conservative opponent of health care reform, fighting (literally) to defeat a plan that would bring coverage to those who lose their jobs, lost his coverage because he got laid off?

The sad part of this is that he will have his medical bills taken care of by conservatives solely because he towed the line. Not because he is honest, not because he has something to contribute to the ongoing debate over healthcare, but simply because he is the gimmick of the moment for conservatives.

Mike Huckabee Is His Own "Pastor-Problem"

Typical conservative/religious response to something they don't like - just claim that the subject or the person is attempting to kick Baby Jesus in the face:

In a posting on his website, Huckabee states:

I urge you to email or call your Senator and Congressman this weekend or first thing Monday and let him or her know that your are against the pork laden stimulus bill in Congress. Call every talk tadio program you can and speak out. Go to the blogosphere and urge action on the part of other citizens who are outraged as well.

Go to your computer or your phone. Do it now. Let your voice be heard. If you don't speak out, then you are saying it's okay for Congress to mis-spend money.

Email or call now. There is time to stop it.

Think Progress reports:

[T]his myth has been making the rounds in right-wing circles for about a week. Originally, the American Center for Law and Justice, a right-wing legal group formed by TV preacher Pat Robertson, said the stimulus bill includes a provision that would prohibit “religious groups and organizations from using” buildings on college campuses. […]

[T]he standard language in the bill simply blocks spending for on-campus buildings that are used primarily for religion (like a chapel, for example). This same language has been part of education spending bills for 46 years. It’s just the law, and it’s never been controversial.

The only think more dangerous than an uninformed politician, is an uninformed religious fanatic that is a politician.

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly has more.