I want to talk about public opinion polls, the ones which regularly get splashed all over the media, especially when they're allegedly telling us which political party is "winning the race"; sample headline: Poll shows Liberals taking lead, Tories sagging in the stretch, NDP bringing up the rear.

(Makes you wonder if you should vote or call a bookie.)

And no, I don't want to focus on whether or not such polls are accurate, nor do I wish to discuss the pros and cons of various polling methodologies, other than to say, "Whatever happened to President Hillary Clinton?"

Instead, I'd like to explain how "media pundits" often regard public polls differently than do political strategists.

So let's start with the view of media pundits, who, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely go bonkers over public opinion polls, which they tend to see as magical windows into the future.

Hence, they write about them ceaselessly, discuss them endlessly on public affairs TV shows, and use them to create foundations for all sorts of pet political theories, i.e. "Given how the latest poll shows the Conservatives are losing ground, they should absolutely embrace the carbon tax; it's the only way they'll win!!"

Political strategists, on the other hand, usually regard all those ubiquitous public polls as nothing but glorified fortune cookies, fun to read, but not something you'd necessarily like to plot your life around.

OK, that's all probably a bit of an exaggeration, but it's safe to say, I think, that political strategists are much more skeptical about public polls than are most media pundits.

That's because the main headline-grabbing question of such public polls, and the question media pundits love to seize on, i.e. "Which political party do you support?" doesn't necessarily provide a strategist with the most accurate predictor of voter intentions.

And yes, I know that sounds odd, but it's true.

The fact is, blatant questions about voter intention often don't tell us what voters are truly thinking or more accurately they don't tell us what will ultimately motivate their voting behaviour.

This is why political strategists will commission private internal polls that ask more in-depth questions, questions designed to dig deeper into a voter's psyche.

For instance, the late Arthur Finkelstein, who was one of the world's greatest political pollsters as well my own mentor, always asked respondents where they fit into what he called, the "five issue cluster."

In other words, in his polls, he'd ask: "In general, are you interested in economic issues (taxes, jobs, the budget), foreign affairs,(terrorism, national defense) social issues (education, health care, the environment) urban issues (crime, drugs, immigration) or moral issues (abortion, protecting traditional marriage)."

Now, I suspect, for your average media pundit, the answers to such a question wouldn't mean too much, certainly they wouldn't provide enough fodder for an 800 word column.

But for a guy like Finkelstein, this seemingly routine question provided tons of valuable data that allowed him to see way beyond the "Which party do you support?" numbers.

To see what I mean, let's use a hypothetical example.

Let's say a typical Canadian voter, we'll call him "Bob", tells a pollster he supports Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.

That's the answer, of course, a media pundit would pounce on; he or she would confidently predict that since people like Bob love Trudeau, the Liberals will win the next election.

But let's now assume that Bob, when asked Finkelstein's "cluster" question, self-identifies as a voter who's most interested in the economy.

That answer would catch the attention of a political strategist because its suggests Bob could be easily persuaded to abandon the Liberals and vote Conservative, if the Conservatives effectively make the case to him that Trudeau's policies massive deficits, carbon taxes, stalled NAFTA negotiations are wrecking the economy.

And what if polls also show Bob is not alone?

What if a poll shows that say, 60 percent of Canadians are like Bob and see the economy as the most important issue?

A political strategist would look at that and say, "Hmmm, I don't care if Trudeau's numbers are good right now, if he ignores the economy and continues to make fighting climate change his main issue, this guy is potentially vulnerable."

And by the way, polls typically do show the economy is the main issue for voters, which is what prompted, James Carville's famous line, "It's the economy stupid."

So does this perhaps explain why the federal Liberals recently purchased an oil pipeline, and why they're starting to seemingly dilute their carbon tax plan?

I'll let the media pundits figure that one out.