Do Polls Steer The Voters?

It's hard to go for even a day without seeing the latest political polls. I often wonder how they change so much from day to day. Why did so many people who thought that Candidate A was a jerk yesterday think that he's okay today? And then there are those "exit polls" that are taken after people vote. In this country, voting is probably considered more private than sex. Sometimes people don't feel like telling their children, their spouses, or their best friends whom they vote for. But they're perfectly willing to tell a stranger with a clipboard?

Everybody knows that clever pollsters can word the questions to force the results to be just about anything they want. Who is not going to say "yes" to the question, "Do you want a President who is dedicated to keeping this country safe?" Who won't say "no" to, "Do you want a leader who just cares about rich people?"

Knowing their manipulative nature, why are so many people willing to participate in political polls? I'm sure some people just want to be nice and help the pollsters. Others probably take pride in being part of the process. I suspect that still others do it because it makes them feel important. When they see that 63% published in the paper tomorrow or on television tonight, they can call their friends and tell them that they are part of that 63%. In their eyes, they're just a little bit famous. They're like the people who hold up signs for the camera at ball games or wave outside morning news shows.

Regardless of the reasons why people participate, polls are getting more and more pervasive. They're conducted not just by news organizations, but by candidates' campaigns. Imagine how those admittedly biased pollsters struggle over every word they put in every question. That's why I think manipulative polls are only going to grow. Soon polls may be used as cruel political propaganda without even mentioning names. For example:

Which person would make a better President:

_____Someone who gets confused about the names of Mideast countries and sects?

Or

___Someone who can recite the Greek alphabet backwards?

But they won't have to be that mean or blunt. They're more likely to try for less direct attacks and, at the same time, spread false rumors:For example:

Hypothetically speaking, would you rather vote for:

___Someone who may still have secret ties to a crazed pastor?

Or

___ Someone who has a very sweet daughter?

By using the phrase "hypothetically speaking," they can claim they weren't really referring to anyone specific. Another example is:

Hypothetically speaking, are you more likely to vote for:

____Someone who will say anything to get elected?

Or

___Someone who is a war hero?

The poll of the future might also be used to minimize a candidate's baggage. Let's say, a candidate had once been involved in a minor financial scandal. A question might be:

Are you more likely to vote for:

____Someone who had a lapse of judgment many years ago?

Or

____A serial killer?

Of course, the poll doesn't say that the opponent is actually a serial killer, but by bringing up such a heinous crime, it minimizes the candidate's scandal. And maybe it does get at least a few people thinking, "I didn't know that other guy was a serial killer. Maybe I shouldn't vote for him."

A danger with political polls is that people like to back a winner. Voters enjoy being able to say after the election that they voted for the person who won. That's why they don't show the results on TV until the polls have closed. If a poll says that Candidate A just moved ahead of Candidate B, there are people who will climb on the bandwagon and vote for Candidate A just because the poll says he or she is ahead. When that happens, the poll turns from being a way to measure public opinion to a device that forms public opinion.

So how would you answer my poll question which is no less fair than many we see these days:

When it comes to political polls, do you think they are:

_____ A perfect tool we should all be grateful for?

Or

____ The cause of much poverty in the world and the greatest threat that we face today?

Kentucky Derby Preview: Stud or Dud?

Everyone knows stories about couples who desperately tried to get pregnant and only succeeded after they stopped trying so desperately. Maybe that's what the owners of 2002 Kentucky Derby Winner War Emblem should try with the reluctant stud. For the last few years, he's shown no interest in horsing around. Since the Derby is this Saturday, I wonder if the owner of this year's winner will get luckier with a horse who enjoys getting lucky.

Shadai Stallion Station in Hokkaido Japan bought War Emblem for $17 million. The "New York Times" estimates that his owners have lost out on about $55 million dollars in stud fees because of the horse's lack of interest in the opposite sex. Personally, I think they're judging the big guy too harshly.

The horse is nine years old, and has mated with "only" seventy mares. I don't know how many horse years equal one human year, but no matter what the formula is, seventy mates is nothing to sneeze at. Maybe he just doesn't want any more children. As far as I'm concerned, it's hard enough to worry about just two kids.

The baffling thing for the owners of the stalled stallion is that he hasn't had a date in over two years. Nothing. Zippo. Nada. And they've tried their best. They've offered him all kinds of different mares -- old ones, young ones, and horses of different colors. Maybe it's time the owners joined the 21st century and tried to find War Emblem a mate online. Surely there must be a website called H-Date in which lonely horses seek company with other, uh, naysayers. (If there isn't such a website, there probably will be by the time you finish reading this column).

The latest thing the owners are trying is keeping him separated from the other stallions. The theory is that by having him spend time exclusively with the mares instead of the stallions, War Emblem will feel more secure in his sexuality. I'm not so sure that makes sense. If you don't let a guy hang out with other guys and if you insist that he spend all his time with women, do you really think he'll feel more manly?

Guys need other guys to talk to about women. Maybe male horses need to be around other male horses to confide in, to boast, or to gossip in whatever way horses do those things. Let's face it. A stallion can't exactly nudge the mare next to him and say, "Did you see the fetlocks on that new filly?"

The horses that War Emblem sired before he stopped being in the mood have done quite well. They've won races and they've earned lots of money for their owners. Isn't that enough? Haven't we evolved to the point that a male is no longer expected to "perform" whether he feels like it or not? How many more winners, how many more millions does this horse owe his owners? If he's not in the mood, should he be expected to fake it to make them happy?

By isolating him from the other stallions, the owners may feel that they are taking the pressure off War Emblem. However, I'm sure he picks up on their anxiety and wish for him to make more little War Emblems. It's like when a couple decides that they aren't going to talk about how hard it is for them to get pregnant. They go out to dinner and say, "Let's talk about any other subject." They may say that, but they know that they're still both thinking about getting pregnant.

So I think it's time for War Emblem's owners to relax. If he wants to be a dad again, he will be. If he doesn't, he won't. War Emblem is a living, breathing, unpredictable animal, not a machine. I understand that when they paid all those millions for him, they thought he'd churn out horse after horse after horse. But there's something appropriate in the fact that they may have gambled and lost just like most people do at the racetrack.

It certainly brings up one thing for this year's owners to keep in mind: the horse that runs the fastest just might also run the fastest when being chased by a horse who has romance on its mind.