I’ll begin with a confession (okay, let’s call it a “nerd” confession).

I’ve been a political junkie since I could speak. Perhaps my dad had something to do with it, but we’ll get to the psychoanalysis another time. And that’s not even the “confession” part (although one may find some serious “nerd” in that statement).

My confession is that during an election season long, long ago, at a high school far, far away, I pretended to be a pollster. I fibbed about working for Gallup or the AP or the L.A. Times — I don’t remember which. I picked out names from the White Pages and made a bunch of calls. I believed at the time that my political-science teacher would look kindly on this profound piece of initiative: political “science,” statistic graphs, and all of the other shit that went into a pre-(Bill) Clinton election. Unsurprisingly, my poli-sci teacher found my bit of tomfoolery to be tomfoolish. He frowned on high school students pretending to be professional anythings other than professional high school students. As I recall, a suspension was involved.

But I learned a very valuable lesson, one that took a few years to absorb, but valuable nonetheless: If a group of Joes or Jills believe they are speaking to someone with authority, and that authority figure desires to hear the opinion of the average Joe or Jill, then that particular Joe or Jill will feel important. Really important. And I felt as if I was doing those Joes and Jills a tremendous service. I stayed in character, and Joe and Jill felt not only valued, but valuable.

I had one and only one question: Are you supporting Candidate A or Candidate B? That was it. I must have made sixty or seventy calls. I don’t remember the results, but I do know just how profoundly different polling has since become.

This difference can be explained by a nifty newish practice called “micro-polling.” Micro-polling started out fairly reasonably: They wanted to know your age, your gender, your level of education, married, single, kids, no kids… that kind of stuff. Fairly banal.

“One of my favorite polling questions is: If you were not African-American, would you consider voting for Trump?”

However.

As I’ve attempted to point out in these columns, there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between Hollywood and Washington. And that’s precisely why these poll questions have changed so dramatically.

Gone are the days of; Which candidate do you prefer to vote for this November? That question comes off as amateurish-beyond-simple-close-to-shithead-moronic (like the question I asked in high school). Today’s polling man or woman has politicians convinced that it’s more important to know why someone is voting for a candidate rather than who they’re actually voting for. And so, an industry was created.

Now, Americans are polled to death on sensationalized issues like the “nuclear football,” which forms the question: Who do you trust with the nuclear codes? You can probably figure out the answer here; however, the fact that Trump is losing this round of questioning isn’t really his fault. But why is that?

Americans actually have no idea what the nuclear football is. I would guess that 99 percent of our citizenry view the nuclear codes much like they view the red button at the carnival that you keep smashing until Mr. Clowny’s face fills up with water and you get a cheap stuffed animal. People don’t know (and I’m not suggesting they should) that the nuclear football is a set of complex calculations involving more than one person beside the president, lots of oversight, plus a bunch of time to reflect on changing your mind after you’ve been talked off the ledge.

One of my favorite polling questions is: If you were not African-American, would you consider voting for Trump? Answer: But I am African-American! Follow up: I know, but let’s do a little thought experiment… And on it goes (though I would have hung up), as if this particular gentleman were the Lord of the African-American Vote.

But really, the only question that truly matters is who you are going to vote for (if you’re going to vote). The rest is bullshit created by a bullshit industry that draws attention from the bread-and-butter, job/no job, health care/no health care issues that plague us daily. Campaigns need to know the number of people voting for them, not why they’re voting for them (save the exception of fine-tuning a message that pulls in a thousand votes in Scranton, Pennsylvania). But this bullshit industry hires hundreds of surrogates to hit the airwaves to either reinforce or gently walk back a candidate’s off-the-cuff, caught-on-tape “position.”

Polls are not scientific. Sure, you may find a great predictor like Nate Silver or Sam Wang at Princeton, but they are great predictors, not great scientists.

But why are these polls not scientific? Because these types of micro-polls are simply a reflection of the people you hang out with, their opinions, and your particular mood in the particular moment that some pollster has managed to corral.

I don’t believe we care about policy anymore. We only care about why we care about policy — the psychoanalytics of voting, not the substance.

PHOTO: Shutterstock.com / Alexandru Nika  / Lemon Tree Images