I agree that the “unsure” percentage makes more sense in association with “somewhat likely” and "not very likely” than it possibly can in association with “not at all likely.”I will go further and say that putting “unsure” in the poll as an option at all is illegitimate for the simple reason that all the other options are couched as various degrees of “likely.” None of the options are certainties; what is “unsure” in that context???
But the real point is that either "Senior Officials of the Obama Administration Illegally Spied on the Trump Campaign” - or else they didn’t. Obviously I trust sources which persuade me that they did. But since I wasn’t there, I have to allow at least the slightest smidgen of doubt. Cognito Egro Sum, and all that.
But we do have a whole branch of government whose mission is the ascertaining of “official facts.” When a suspect is arrested and broadcasters discuss that fact, they do not refer to suspect as “the perpetrator” until and unless the suspect is convicted in court. The conviction makes the “suspect” officially "the perpetrator.”
The point, heavily suppressed by the unanimous - but wrong and evil - New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision by the Warren Court, is that publicizing factual inaccuracies is illegal. You go after someone’s reputation by publishing falsehoods, you owe that person damages. As soon as that person proves his case in court after suing for libel.
A poll such as this does not change the truth or falsity of the “Did Senior Officials of the Obama Administration Illegally Spy on the Trump Campaign?” question. All it could constitute is proof of the extent of the tort of libel if Trump sued “the media” for libel and proved that " Senior Officials of the Obama Administration” did indeed "Illegally Spy on the Trump Campaign."
Agreed. And your final point would be ideal.