You said "repairing our relationship with the average middle-easterner" and then "the civilized world." Frankly, I don't think those are quite the same. And while I agree with kabs point, I don't think the actual civilized world would really much care if we had to bomb Iran's weapon sites.
That's not how surveys work (and yes, your title was incredibly misleading). You don't pick a random survey (that isn't a proper sample) and say "well, prove the [bad] sample is actually unrepresentative!" It's unrepresentative by definition. And the survey questions aren't really leading. Leading would be "You support the Iran deal, don't you?" They're just laying out what the deal is. That doesn't presuppose it'll work, it's just laying out the terms of the deal.
I personally think lynching is the worst kind of racism, but we can disagree there. However, I certainly don't think you can say it is "definitely" coded racism when he picked a black man as well. You don't know why he said what he did, because you're not him (neither, for that matter, do I, but I'm not saying what it definitely was or definitely was not - there's a good Mr. Pink speech on this point). But given what we know, "definitely" is a huge stretch.
Okay, I tried long enough to get the mentions to work. I give up. Jason (as resident Star Trek nerd), if/when you read this (or someone else similarly situated), I've never watched any Star Trek, and it's all now on Netflix. Should I just start from the very beginning, or is it too camp at this point?
Honestly, this is something I really could not care less about. But given that, if it makes some of the Alaskan natives happy, then it works for me. McKinley wasn't exactly a memorable president, anyway.
I actually like the old-school 10 point scale, but I admit I'm something of a relic in this regard. I just like the ability to quickly compare games against one another, as problematic as that can be sometimes.
It's entirely relevant, because your question was overly simplistic and it demonstrates why. I've posted enough about this overly pedantic argument though, and it seems like misfit isn't really interested in it either, so I'll just leave it at that.
Like I said before, it's not breaking it down into its component parts (so no, you wouldn't see it on a website), but it's not incorrect. I describe a dissent as telling the majority it fucked up. That's a correct description, even if a website wouldn't use it.