You can still 'vote' on the Sarah Palin 'poll.' This is from the NOW Executive Producer:
So, is the Palin poll now "scientific"? Absolutely not. It is still subject to large scale efforts on the left and the right to mobilize people to vote. The poll has become something of a Rorschach test, a tiny political marker in a tightly contested race. Over the past two weeks, the results of the poll see-sawed back and forth from a majority saying "No" to a majority saying, "Yes". At the moment the single-voter system was implemented, it was close to a tie: 50% say Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President, and 48% say no. Those results, in my view, are actually a measure of the mobilization and manipulation efforts by partisans on both sides. Now it will be all about mobilization, and less about manipulation. Blogs on the left and right are circulating viral emails with the exact address of the poll.
and the poll is here if you have, ahem, not cast your vote yet.
Given enough time, this poll just may become 'scientific.'
Comments
Considering the percentages currently add up to 98 I'd say it isn't all that scientific.
Posted by: dreamstretch | October 1, 2008 8:53 AM
I don't like to vote in these "non-scientific" polls, but I was curious about the results. So I just clicked on the button to see the results, without casting a vote. Just now, I took another look, and I was informed that I had already voted, so I couldn't vote. To recap: I am not interested in voting. I didn't vote. But now I am blocked from voting.
Posted by: TomS | October 1, 2008 9:45 AM
Boy, that's a tough question.
I looked over the list of former Vice Presidents in order to get some clues about qualifications but it wasn't much help since I'd never heard of George M Dallas or William A Wheeler.
However, there were a few names I recognized and this gave me some important clues about the minimum qualifications. I remember Spiro T. Agnew and J. Danforth Quayle.
I guess I'd have to answer yes - Sarah Palin is at least as qualified as some of the former Vice Presidents.
Maybe you were expecting a different response from your readers?
Posted by: Larry Moran | October 1, 2008 9:47 AM
It is 49 - 49 at this time, per their read-out.
I would have liked to see a "Hell No" as a choice too.
Posted by: J-Dog | October 1, 2008 10:19 AM
Does she meet the minimum requirements for the position? Yes. Is she qualified? Different question.
Posted by: lylebot | October 1, 2008 2:09 PM
"To recap: I am not interested in voting. I didn't vote. But now I am blocked from voting."
Funny that I have voted each and every time I see it mentioned, from the same computer and server with no problem!
Posted by: sailor | October 1, 2008 9:13 PM
lylebot asks,
You think the minimum qualifications of anyone who has served in the position should be the standard by which a candidate for that position is judged?
It was a joke but if you want to get serious about it then the standards of previous Vice Presidents is one of the criteria that have to be considered.
Do you vote on tenure cases that way?
Yes. If a given candidate exceeds the minimum standard set by previous candidates who have been awarded tenure then we better have a very damn good reason for denying tenure or the union will, quite rightly, be on our case.
Do you believe differently?
Posted by: Larry Moran | October 1, 2008 9:41 PM
Larry: I've been thinking about the Quayle-Palin comparison since Palin came on the scene. It is kind of mind boggling.
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 2, 2008 6:55 AM