Clinton and Obama Named Most Admired People

[Reddie]

Surprise, surprise. Who'd have thought there were people who still "admire" Obama after all that he's done or failed to do? A Gallup poll released on Monday reveals that Obama for the 8th year in a row still is the most admired person in the world.

Pope Francis and Donald Trump tie at #2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/u...-yousafzai-most-admired-gallup-poll.html?_r=0

Among the men, Pope Francis and Mr. Trump each earned 5 percent, followed by Bernie Sanders with 3 percent and Bill Gates with 2 percent. Tied for seventh place were the Dalai Lama and George W. Bush.

George W. Bush? It makes me doubt the veracity of this poll.

 

[dogtowner]

Admire a politician ? Seriously ?
Why not a used car salesman ?

 

[Reddie]

To be honest I've never actually met someone who says they admire Obama, Clinton or Bush. I wonder how they phrased their questions: who do you like more? Obama or . . .

 

[nytegeek]

These types of polls don't mean anything. They are just pseudo-news opinion designed to attract viewers or readers.

 

[pwarbi]

I have to agree and I'd question the validity of this poll also to be honest. It must have either been a slow news day, or they asked peoples opinions who was on their way home after a night out. Either way I don't believe a word of it.

 

[Charles Franklin]

I have to agree and I'd question the validity of this poll also to be honest. It must have either been a slow news day, or they asked peoples opinions who was on their way home after a night out. Either way I don't believe a word of it.

I tend to agree with you. The vast majority of these polls are "convenience polls". They don't focus on representative samples of people, use biased questions, and a host of other problems. Ironically, as this article (http://iqsresearch.com/tag/convenience-sampling/) points out, these types of polls do serve a purpose. They help candidates validate or improve their presentation of their public image.

 

[pwarbi]

I'm not even sure that I agree that those types of polls DO serve any type of purpose as surely the questions asked, and the results they conclude, are just set up, propaganda pieces but in disguise?

 

[Charles Franklin]

I'm not even sure that I agree that those types of polls DO serve any type of purpose as surely the questions asked, and the results they conclude, are just set up, propaganda pieces but in disguise?

My point was not that these polls are "set up", but that they can be used to strengthen a candidate's public standing. If a candidate shows that his or her "poll numbers are up", this leads others to consider that the candidate is doing well in the campaign.

 

[pwarbi]

I understand that, what I meant was that the electorate aren't as stupid as these politicians think we are, and just because we might see a poll saying one thing, doesn't mean we're going to believe it without at least looking a little deeper and seeing it for what it probably is...BS!

 

[Charles Franklin]

I understand that, what I meant was that the electorate aren't as stupid as these politicians think we are, and just because we might see a poll saying one thing, doesn't mean we're going to believe it without at least looking a little deeper and seeing it for what it probably is...BS!

I understand. I would agree partly. The electorate isn't "as stupid as politicians think we are", but we do fall into some psychological pitfalls (i.e. stereotyping, prejudices, relying on local news to guide our election decisions) that politicians are well aware.
In short, I agree with you. I just think it's more complicated.

 

[pwarbi]

There is obviously a lot more to it than what I mentioned but the idea was there.

Politicians only have themselves (and their campaign managers) to blame though. It seems like a few years ago, politicians used to be respected a lot more than what they are now, and I think the reason they're not now is because of the way the electorate as been treated and the lies we've been fed.

 

[jbbarn]

These types of polls don't mean anything. They are just pseudo-news opinion designed to attract viewers or readers.

I think they're more subversive than that. They're probably designed to sway public opinion, another part of "the big lie."

 

[pwarbi]

I think they're more subversive than that. They're probably designed to sway public opinion, another part of "the big lie."

While I'm definitely no conspiracy theorist, I do think there's some truth that the media have their own agenda and polls like this and the 'results' are all a part of trying to sway the public and lead them down a specific route in terms of who to vote for.