Human Events is running an ad here on this site that invites people to take a survey about Herman Cain's candidacy.

Fine, as far as that goes, but why does the first question have to be complete nonsense and totally unanwserable the way it's phrased?

Here's the question:

Herman Cain has recently come under fire for sexual harrassment allegations that have surfaced from his days as president of the National Restaurant Association. Pundits have critizied the Cain campaign's handling of the scandal, and are questioning whether he can maintain his newfound frontrunner status.

1. Can Herman Cain survive this scandal, or will the allegations destroy his campaign's momentum? Vote now!


When you attempt to answer this question, you see that it is really two questions with only one answer allowed.  It's extremely poorly phrased.  It's a meaningless question.

You could answer "yes" or "no" and the value of your answer would be completely interpretative given the way the question is written.

A better way to write it, not the best way, but at least a logically answerable way would be:

"Choose between the two:  A: Herman Cain's Campaign can survive this scandal.  B: The allegations will destroy his campaign's momentum.
1) A
2) B"

Something tells me we can do better than this.


*This question is required