I was thinking about the critics of this a bit more, and on further consideration, the other point I would make about this is that the intention of the poll was NOT to come up with a blanket explanation of all of the different varieties of political thought, but to measure the attitudes of American on a Conservative to Progressive scale. To ignore3 the intrinsic value in such a measurement because there are other scales is in my opinion a bit myopic.
What I mean is this. Let’s say I wanted to conduct a study of the heights of the average American by race. And I could come up with statements like the average Caucasian is this height, the average African American is this height, the average Asian is this height and so on. On one hand, if it didn’t cover every possible combination of races, there would be critics. For example, say you’re 1/4 German, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 African and 1/4 Hispanic…well for the purposes of conducting a poll, you probably wouldn’t find anywhere near 1% of the population with that ethnic makeup, and there would be literally countless permutations that don’t fit neatly into a category…those might well be considered “mixed race” or “other” on such a scale. This person would probably feel the same way about the survey as a Libertarian would feel about a study to determine where you come in on the line between Conservative and Progressive thought. It doesn’t mean that the study if flawed or is not inclusive enough of people who meet these smaller categories, but let’s face it, if a HUGE portion of America was truly libertarian, then the Libertarians would be a much larger party, capable of winning national elections. In other words, Libertarians who don’t fit into one of the Conservative or Liberal self identifying factors probably don’t comprise a very huge portion of the population. Certainly that number of self identified McCain voters included some Libertarians, as well as some Democrats, just like the self identified Obama voters included some Libertarians AND some Republicans (not to mention the literally dozens of other parties one can associate one’s self with).
Or to look at it another way, it would be perhaps like condemning this survey of heights based on the fact that it was not height by weight or heigh by sex or height by religious or political affiliation. Point is, each of these statements was fair and each represented essentially a statement that was either 100% idealized Progressive/Liberal, or 100% antithetical to the Progressive/Liberal ideal, and the point was to determine how “Progressive” voters were in various groups and in general. It was NEVER intended to determine what your exact leanings were or to dismiss anything other than polar opposites as non-existent or not worth considering. It was simply meant to determine, “how progressive are YOU?” You could do a survey about how drunk are you and someone would bitch that they’re not drunk, they’re high…again, you’re misssing the point. And as to the idea of 10 points being a bad way to determine something, you may advocate for 5 data points, I may advocate for 100. Any method of getting at attitudes is going to have some inherent flaws, and someone who thinks outside the constraints of liberal/conservative might well have a number of either divergent 10 point/0 point answers and/or a number of 5 point answers where neither a yes nor a no describes their point of view, but overall, it’s a litmus test that says, “On this range of 40 topics, you can go this far right or this far left, or you can be somewhat more nuanced, but there really is nothing further left than x and nothing further right than y, so where do you stand on the x y axis?” That’s all it is.
What I mean is this