Tonight I got a robo-poll from Rasmussen, a full 7-minute spiel about all the issues of the day. Who would I vote for if the election were tomorrow? What do I think about the direction America is heading? How old am I? etc.
I could handle most of it fine, but then they came to this question (as close to verbatim as I can make it):
“If you heard a politician described as a ‘Global Warming Advocate,’ would you consider that a positive description or a negative description? Press 1 if you would consider it a positive description. Press 2 if you would consider it a negative description. Press 3 if you would consider it somewhere in between.”
Seriously, Rasmussen, this is your question on global warming?
What, you thought Ras came by that heavy Republican lean by fudging the numbers? Of course not! The fudge is baked right into the questions.
What the hell is a “Global Warming Advocate”, anyway? Why would anyone advocate warming? Is it someone who’s investing in beachfront property in Kansas? A mad herpetologist with a plan to Show Them All? A guy who hates penguins with the fire of a thousand suns?
I know, right? I figured if I said I’d think negatively of it, they’d interpret that as saying I didn’t believe in global warming. But I couldn’t possibly say I’d approve of someone who advocated setting the earth on fire.
It’s far and away the dumbest, most mystifying polling question I’ve ever heard.
I’m not sure how I feel about global warming advocacy either, but I want to applaud you for your civic altruism if you really listened to a 7-minute robo-poll. :smack: