web analytics
February 1, 2015 / 12 Shevat, 5775
 
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

The 3 Percent Who Would Not Say


Shockwaves reverberated throughout the country at about 4 p.m. on Election Day as, from the initial exit polls, it looked like John Kerry would seize the White House through decisive victories in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Pundits on all the networks explained why Bush was unable to hold on to his states and how Kerry made up ground in the closing weeks.

Less than 24 hours later, Kerry conceded. What did we miss? Where did our exit polls go so wrong?

Though some are calling for an investigation of the polling methodology and technology, there was a much more unique social phenomenon at play. The main reason why this year’s exit polls were so wrong is grounded in what I call the “unadmitted 3 percent.”

After four years of relentless Bush bashing from Hollywood celebrities like Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner, and, even more recently, music industry giants Bruce Springsteen and Eminem, voting for George Bush had become a 21st century societal taboo ranking closely with smoking indoors and leaving one’s cell phone on during a movie.

Ever since Bush’s victory in the controversial 2000 election, admitting one’s support for the president in some circles has led to pariah status or, at the very least, unwanted confrontation. As a result, rather than admit, even to a total stranger, that they voted for Bush, a significant segment of the electorate simply lied to avoid a discussion with the exit pollsters – much in the same way they had been doing with friends and co-workers.

The one thing that was clear throughout the presidential campaign was that we in America had an extremely vocal 30 percent of our population that absolutely hated Bush – a sentiment that had been expressed throughout the president’s first term. This raw hatred for a sitting president by such a large number of Americans was a phenomenon not seen before – certainly not on this level – in the history of the country.

Among undecided voters, however, there were millions of Americans whose attitude about voting for President Bush was summed up by something Jack Nicholson said in “A Few Good Men”: “Deep down in places they don’t want to talk about [they] want me on that line, need me on that line.”

Whether it was social liberals concerned with matters of national security; religious Jews worried about John Kerry’s weak stance on Israel; or Midwestern families who simply at the end of the day did not trust a Northeastern liberal in the White House, the deciding ballots in this election were cast by individuals who voted in a way they felt was correct but were not comfortable enough to admit.

The proof of the “unadmitted 3 percent” theory can be seen from looking at the late afternoon numbers in the Ohio and Florida exit polls. Kerry held leads of 52 to 48 in Ohio and 51 to 48 in Florida. The actual results, however, showed Bush with 51 percent in Ohio and 52 percent in Florida. It was the “unadmitted” individuals – those who were unwilling to publicly go against the societal taboo of voting for George Bush – who were responsible for millions of Americans settling in front of their televisions on Tuesday night fully expecting to watch the coronation of John Kerry.

So, then, it was not the polling technology itself, but rather the taboo of voting for George Bush, that skewed the exit poll numbers. In many ways, this election spoke volumes about the greatness of our democracy, as the deciding votes came from people who felt they were making the right decision if not necessarily the popular one. 

The election also clearly demonstrated that it is the quiet, everyday voters in our politically deadlocked country who truly have the power to shift the direction of our nation.

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “The 3 Percent Who Would Not Say”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
The United States condemned Iran for honoring Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyeh but is not so bothered when Abbas honors PA terrorists.
CIA, Mossad Collaborated on Killing Hezbollah No. 2 Leader in Damascus
Latest Indepth Stories
Eli Weiss

Shepherding in the Shomron isn’t your usual kind of shepherding – despite his business-minded beginnings, Eli has discovered that a strong ideological impetus powers the job.

Resnick-013015-Pilot

I said to myself, “This story has got to be told. We’re losing this generation of World War II and if we don’t listen to them now, we’ve lost it.”

Eller-013015

His entire existence was about spreading simcha and glorifying G-d’s name on a daily basis.

IRAN-US-POLITICS-MILITARY

An Israeli strike could theoretically damage Iran’s nuclear program; only US can terminate program

At some point we need to stop simply defending and promoting Israel and start living in Israel

“We Jews are the only people who when we drop a book on the floor pick it up and kiss it.”

Though Zaide was the publisher of The Jewish Press, a big newspaper,I always remember him learning

Speaker Silver has been an extraordinary public servant since his election to the Assembly in 1975 and has been an exemplary leader of that body since 1994.

He spent the first leg of his daylong visit to the French capital at Hyper Cacher.

Drawing Congress into the Iran nuclear debate is the last thing the White House wants.

Great leaders like Miriam and like Sarah Schenirer possess the capacity to challenge the status quo that confronts them.

Obama’s foreign policy is viewed by both liberals and conservatives as deeply flawed

Many journalists are covertly blaming the Charlie Hebdo writers themselves through self-censorship.

Why does the Times relay different motivations and narratives for jihadists in Europe and Israel?

More Articles from Neil Steinberg

The proof of the “unadmitted 3 percent” theory can be seen from looking at the late afternoon numbers in the Ohio and Florida exit polls.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-3-percent-who-would-not-say/2004/11/10/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: