Decision 2008: The whale vote
posted at 9:20 am on April 19, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
How stupid is this: Six in ten swing-voting Americans might base their votes next year on what Japan is allowed to do to whales.
Presidential candidates who take a firm stand against Japanese whaling practices are more likely to gain support from swing voters, a new poll has shown.
The poll conducted on behalf of the International Fund for Animal Welfare showed that six out of 10 swing voters would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who opposed the Japanese practice of killing whales for research.
I’ll confess that my first thought upon reading this was something along the lines of “Man, swing voters are stupid. We’re in the middle of a war, Japan has been a solid ally in that war, and they’re willing to throw that alliance out over whales?” But then I had an A-ha! The poll was conducted at the behest of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which just happens to advocate against whaling. The story does identify the poll’s sponsor upfront, but doesn’t say what wording was used in the questions asked in the survey. That might be a tad relevant. The Fund doesn’t publish that information on its web site, fwiw. Neither does Market Strategies, the firm that actually conducted the poll. But quality, unbiased polling and research is just built in that name, isn’t it?
The Fund’s site does offer this laugher:
More than 50% would be willing to stop buying Japanese products to convince the Japanese Government to stop its scientific research whaling
So…half of the country’s swing voters would give up Sony, Honda, Toyota, Panasonic etc etc etc to protest Japanese whaling? Riiiight.
What we seem to have here is a less a real poll than a political campaign, where the questions are worded in such a way as to generate–as opposed to measure–a response. To borrow a thought from Mickey Kaus, this probably wasn’t a robopoll and the questions were probably leading, to make the respondent react emotionally and thereby push up the whale vote’s importance. Then the findings get packaged and put out as a press release, which gets dutifully picked up by the press without much in the way of criticism or background research to determine if there’s a point of view being pushed. In this case, I’d say that there is. I have a hard time believing that six in ten swing voters would actually choose a president over his or her Japanese whaling policy.
Bottom line: I’m skeptical that the 08 vote might swing decisively on the whale question. This one poll is not convincing. But if I’m wrong and this poll turns out to be right and the presidency does hang on the end of a harpoon, expect to see a lot more whale blogging as we run up to ‘08.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m personally against the whaling; there’s no need for it. However, I have a hard time believing that over 50% of Americans would give up their PS3s to end it-I know many who live on that gaming station.
amerpundit on April 19, 2007 at 9:31 AM
reckon they vote?
MikeG on April 19, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Which brings up an interesting idea. How about we allow people to vote…through their gaming systems! Now, that would get people out and voting. Maybe.
amerpundit on April 19, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Well, I for one probably *would* base my vote, at least in part, on this issue. As much as I dislike her, I don’t feel that Rosie should be the target of *any* foreign gov’t; much less an entire fishing industry.
Oh, wait…
dalewalt on April 19, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Zing!!
amerpundit on April 19, 2007 at 9:37 AM
ouch dalewalt. :)
djohn669 on April 19, 2007 at 9:41 AM
I wonder if these people know that whales eat baby polar bears.
RedWinged Blackbird on April 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM
I think if we’re going to allow people to vote on an issue so stupid my IQ dropped in reading about it, we should be able to make candidates to Jacka$$ type stunts to test their presidential worthiness. If Borat Obama will let Chuck Norris kick him in the nards 3 times, I’ll be convinced that he is suitable to fight terrorism and I’ll vote for him. And I’m not talking about girly Walker texas Ranger subdue the bad guy groin kicks; I’m talking about the old fashioned Invasian USA round house kicks that start somewhere in the pan handle of Texas and end with the bad guy flying across the room with the bionic man flying object noise playing.
On a serious note, if the enviro weenies would be will to give up their hybrids for the whales, I’d be behind that. With all the hybrids on the market, think of how many cool lawn mowers you could make?
austinnelly on April 19, 2007 at 9:51 AM
When I saw the thread title, I thought I’d have to be nice to fat chicks for 2 years. Whew!
lorien1973 on April 19, 2007 at 9:53 AM
We should all remember what happened with the Tuna Vote.
bloggless on April 19, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Rosie is more of a Sea Cow, in my opinion.
bloggless on April 19, 2007 at 9:56 AM
IFAW has ads all over the Washington Metro about polar bears trying to cross our borders (I assume to escape hunters). If the whales eat polar bears, that would not be a good thing.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 19, 2007 at 10:05 AM
I thought we already had plenty of Whale Blogging around here… In recent memory I’ve seen Rosie “Thar She Blows” O’Donnel, Al “Man the Harpoons” Gore, and John “The Poor Thing Must Have Beached Itself” Travolta all on this site.
Coincidence? I think not.
Lehosh on April 19, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Ha! I got polled on this! Needless to say, I’m one of the 4-of-10. It was early and I’m a late riser, so my recollection’s a bit vague, but I do recall the questioner being somewhat dismayed at my responses. One I do recall:
“There are approximately 400,000 of such-and-such whales. The Japanese plan on harvesting 600-800. On a scale of 1 to 10, how concerned are you about the scale of the Japanese program?”
“800? That’s way less than half a percent. Can you put me down for a zero?”
token on April 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM
When I saw this post I thought it was gonna be about Rosie.
Darth Executor on April 19, 2007 at 10:37 AM
It was probably the only question in the poll. Put that question in a poll with topics like abolishing the IRS and reforming the tax system and illegal immigration and check the results.
LakeRuins on April 19, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Extinction. It’s nothing to blubber about.
pistolero on April 19, 2007 at 10:48 AM
I’d consider the candidate’s policy on Japanese whaling policy…if by whaling, you mean rearmament.
Kid from Brooklyn on April 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM
ba-da-bum.
dalewalt on April 19, 2007 at 11:02 AM
I can just imagine the campaign commercials:
“Don’t vote for Obama … he’s such a n000b.”
Kristopher on April 19, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Arrrrh, that be a Big Fish Story Bryan!
Arrrrh!
Kini on April 19, 2007 at 12:39 PM
“Six in ten swing-voting Americans might base their votes next year on what Japan is allowed to do to whales.”
Didn’t even know Ted Kennedy was running.
Buzzy on April 19, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I bow to you. I sooo didn’t see that coming. You set that up PERFECTLY and wham! out of left field.
Does IGN do political reviews?
- The Cat
MirCat on April 19, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Comment pages: