|
We see the same statistical goofiness in polls all the time where they aggregate groups oddly and produce gibberish for results.
We saw it with the HCRA bill polls. Most people wanted "a public option" but most people didn't want "the public option", both rendered as "the public option." The public option being debated won a plurality of poll respondents, but not a majority, while a majority was against what they knew "the" public option contained; but a majority each went for some variety of public option, even if the options were mutually contradictory and mostly different from what was proposed at any given time. (Making the discussion harder was that "the" public option, always the same, was ever changing.)
Then there's simple greed and sympathy-induced bias. Most don't want Medicare cut. Most don't want the military cut. Most don't want X, Y, Z, alpha, omega, and aleph cut. On the other hand, most don't want the debt ceiling raised, and most want the budget balanced. It's always, "Don't cut whatever I like, cut this other stuff." Or cut the massive entitlements given to illegal immigrants, the burgeoning waste in Medicare and in Pell Grants, all the waste and corruption in the US Patent Office, guinea-fowl harnesses, etc. It works the same with tax increases. Usually the "wealthy" are those in the next tax bracket up; those who would willingly pay more would only do so if others pay first. It's the individual obligation to compel the collective does something.
|