|
The unscientific poll at the rotary conducted July 1st and 2nd. by Hal Brown |
|
7/1/06 Of course standing at the rotary and trying to judge what percentage of people are for and against the casino, and later offering an opinion on the results saying that they strongly support your own side is a bit reckless. This invites charges of bias or worse from those not shy about criticizing or mocking us. So be it. All I can say is that we tried to be objective. First of all let me say that nobody was even trying to make an accurate count of the total cars, and the only count that came close to being one we'd say was a reasonable approximation was the number of negatives. This was made more difficult to judge than positives because we had to count them based on looking inside every car that drove past, not that they made any effort to hide the fact that they were strongly in opposition. It was easy to note that the occupants of 75% of the cars just ignored us. I can say that I endeavored to look at occupants as part of my fourth part of my multitasking of holding a sign, waving at everyone, and acknowledging positive responses. I noticed that in virtually all of the responding vehicles with more than one occupant, everyone signaled the same sentiment whether pro or con. The only exception was in cars with children in the back seat where it appeared only the pro-casino groups' children waved at us. I think that enthusiasm is contagious from adults to children, while spontaneous negative gestures aren't. The anti-casino people weren't happily waving or honking their horns. I also noticed that the pro-casino age range tended to be broader at 18 to elderly, and that of the pro-casino senior citizen's group most cars had at least two occupants. The age range of the anti-casino group seemed to be 18 to 40 years. I stand by the statement on the front page that those indicating that they supported the casino did so with considerable enthusiasm obviously from their gestures and expressions. It was so common for three or four cars in a row to honk virtually in unison that we couldn't nearly keep a good count of supporters, and many supporters just smiled and wave or gave us a thumbs UP. Some drivers gave us a wave or thumbs up, and then once they could read the "toot for the casino" sign they honked their horns after they drove by. I was especially carefully to watch for and count negative responders because they didn't call attention to themselves by honking their horns. I know that some got by my own actual count of a dozen. From time to time the two other counters told me I'd just missed an anti-casino vehicle. That's why we are saying about twenty on the negative side, but of course it could be more. You simply can't say you see every thumbs down gesture and some may not have seen fit to share an opinion in a way we could discern. If someone said there were forty or fifty vehicles that passed expressing anti-casino sentiment I couldn't make a credible argument against this. I could say that as every group of more than two or three cars passed us there were too many showing support for us to accurately count and that all of us agreed it when it came to what I would publish we would be conservative and I'd write that it was at least 100 an hour.
Some vehicles, usually with two or more men aged 18-25 also accompanied their gestures with catcalls. Were they that concerned about losing the clear night sky over Nemasket (not a certainty), the rural ambiance of Middleboro (already lost), or having their homes broken into? Adding all the various negative expressions I saw I have to ask myself whether we really understand what is making many of these people this angry?
It wouldn't surprise me that more and more people are reconsidering earlier anti-casino opinions. I think that as they are gaining more information, they are changing their minds. I predict that by the time it comes for a Town Meeting vote there is a landslide positive vote. |