[memracom]

Ever think that on most issues, say 985 times out of 100, the other side is roughly 50% of those that are not undecided. If you look at the issue overall, and allow for shades of gray between the positions, then most people are in rough agreement around some central position.

I think that if you can construct a survey on the issue that correctly breaks out several shades of gray in the position, then the results will plot out on a normal curve. Only when the normal curve is heavily weighted to one side or the other, i.e. there is a larger group on one side of the median, do you have a winnable issue.

It's too bad that media just spends so much time groveling in the mud with everyone else, when they could actually be doing such surveys and illuminating the issue.

Take gun control for instance. How many of you have any idea what shape of curve would result from such a survey? And if you compared it to the results 25 years ago, how would it differ? If you had a series of such surveys over time, then what trends would they show?

Without this info, there is no point in debating. I don't doubt that somebody has done such surveys and does have this info. And those people do influence politicians. But that just reinforces an elite separate from the masses, and is fundamentally anti-democratic.

[DrScump]

   ...say 985 times out of 100...

985 times out of 100, people in general will mistrust the data. ;)