Anything But Chocolate?

I took a few research methods classes and statistics in grad school, but I guess I missed the whole discussion on the “anything-but-that” interpretation chapters.

If I take a survey that asks me if I like chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla ice-cream best, I’m going to mark my favorite choice, which, by the way, is chocolate. But just because I mark “chocolate” does not mean that I’m only marking chocolate simply because I don’t want “strawberry” to get the most votes. It actually means I like chocolate the best that day.

The truth is, I like chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla ice-cream. But if I have to choose, I’ll take chocolate first. If, for some reason all the chocolate disappeared off the planet, I’d take vanilla (then I’d make sure all my affairs were in order, because that would be a sure sign that the end of the world was near).

So why do we keep getting so many poll interpretations saying that people want anyone but Mitt? Isn’t it possible that there are people out there who maybe just happen to like another candidate for some reason or other, and they aren’t just voting for someone simply because that someone isn’t Mitt? Frankly, if I were Rick Santorum right now I’d feel a little offended (and worried). These people are telling us that the real reason anyone voted for him, or five of the other candidates, in Iowa was simply because he wasn’t Mitt, not because they actually like him.

The other candidates have all had their surges in the polls. They have all had spurts of momentum when people suddenly give them a lot of attention. But it dies down. Mitt Romney has remained the constant through it all. And just like how I occasionally will eat strawberry ice-cream, or maybe vanilla just for a little change, I always go back to chocolate, and I believe people will rally around Mitt in the end, when they’ve tried the other flavors, but make Mitt their final decision.