I'm starting to really wonder just how full of shit these major polls are...

[Hugo Chavez]

Today I'm listening to Thom Hartmann and he up spur of the moment announces that he's going to do a quick Dem straw poll.  He asks people to call in and just say the name of the candidate they're voting for and hang up.  Calls come in right away, no time for anyone to call around or anything and he does this for about 15 minutes.  Seems fairly random to me, this being people calling from all over listening to the show and line up of calls would be pretty random.  Now if Thom has been supporting one candidate heavy over another that would make a difference but I haven't heard him do that unless I missed it.  This would actually be a better straw poll than some of the big straw polls where candidates buy voters since this us spur of the moment.

Here were the top 4 results.

39 for Edwards
32 for kucinich
7 for Hillary
7 for Obama

So for many reasons I've been looking at the Republican polls and find them just flat out unbelievable... I was shocked to see this small poll also turn out nowhere near reflecting polling of "probable voters"  I'm really starting to wonder just how much of a joke these larger polling organizations are.  WTF???  I too would rather see Edwards than Hillary or Obama...

[Dos Equis]

Today I'm listening to Thom Hartmann and he up spur of the moment announces that he's going to do a quick Dem straw poll.  He asks people to call in and just say the name of the candidate they're voting for and hang up.  Calls come in right away, no time for anyone to call around or anything and he does this for about 15 minutes.  Seems fairly random to me, this being people calling from all over listening to the show and line up of calls would be pretty random.  Now if Thom has been supporting one candidate heavy over another that would make a difference but I haven't heard him do that unless I missed it.  This would actually be a better straw poll than some of the big straw polls where candidates buy voters since this us spur of the moment.

Here were the top 4 results.

39 for Edwards
32 for kucinich
7 for Hillary
7 for Obama

So for many reasons I've been looking at the Republican polls and find them just flat out unbelievable... I was shocked to see this small poll also turn out nowhere near reflecting polling of "probable voters"  I'm really starting to wonder just how much of a joke these larger polling organizations are.  WTF???  I too would rather see Edwards than Hillary or Obama...

Come on Berserker.  A sample size of 85 who may or may not be voting, of legal age to vote, etc.?  You can't draw any reliable conclusions from this. 

[Hugo Chavez]

absolutely correct BB and never did I claim such... I don't know how many times I have to repeat it, hell it doesn't even seem to matter to you when I post it directly.  I do not consider these items to be of greatest accuracy.  What was noteworthy to me here is that it was so extremely off from national polls.  Now you ought to know by now how I'm at in looking at these things, yet you insist on tossing the same notion of this or that not being accurate--no shit...  Did you honestly think I would lay out a poll of less than 100 people and say ah HA!!!

[Dos Equis]

absolutely correct BB and never did I claim such... I don't know how many times I have to repeat it, hell it doesn't even seem to matter to you when I post it directly.  I do not consider these items to be of greatest accuracy.  What was noteworthy to me here is that it was so extremely off from national polls.  Now you ought to know by now how I'm at in looking at these things, yet you insist on tossing the same notion of this or that not being accurate--no shit...  Did you honestly think I would lay out a poll of less than 100 people and say ah HA!!!

I guess what I'm trying to say is a "poll" like this is meaningless.  Half the people could have been under 18.  Some or all of them may not even be registered to vote.

And the fact that Kucinich wound up with so many "votes" really shows how unreliable that "poll" was.     

[Hugo Chavez]

I guess what I'm trying to say is a "poll" like this is meaningless.  Half the people could have been under 18.  Some or all of them may not even be registered to vote.

And the fact that Kucinich wound up with so many "votes" really shows how unreliable that "poll" was.     

It's not "meaningless" unless you place it out of the context it's done in

[sync pulse]

For a poll to have a nationwide accuracy of +/_ 2 percent, you have to have a sample size of two thousand.  You also have to be sure you don't skew it.

[Hugo Chavez]

For a poll to have a nationwide accuracy of +/_ 2 percent, you have to have a sample size of two thousand.  You also have to be sure you don't skew it.

really, great to know, I had no idea

[Hugo Chavez]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=163141.0

[xxxLinda]

But is it not the type of people who take part in these shit major polls?  When the tv cameras come at me asking for an opinion I cross the street.

Anyone who would 'phone in, is obviously a sad attention seeker, with more money than sense. 

I still don't understand reality tv.



...Guess it's probably a huge money-maker, this pole crap.

They promised us a referendum in England, like 10 years ago.  Never happened.

Perhaps they don't like polls or votes they can't fix?


& statistics send me spare... How on earth do they come up with them?
xL

ps:  I used to work in advertising and we thought 1% response was fantastic.

[Hugo Chavez]

There are numerous valid arguments why polls like this are not accurate.  Again, what I found interesting about it was that it was not even remotely close to the polls yet you can see in this poll Obama and Hillary are close which does reflect the polls...  Please note the title of my thread...  Key on "wonder"  I have raised curiosity, not showing up here with a definitive observation based on a small poll like this.  I do not think someone who calls into an instant straw poll is " a sad attention seeker." That's just silly.

[xxxLinda]

There are numerous valid arguments why polls like this are not accurate.  someone who calls into an instant straw poll is " .

a bit weird

...and also has an opinion which they feel a sudden desire to voice (and stand up and be counted, like they think it's their vote that matters?)



which is, obviously, what troubles me.  Because most sane people nowadays know that it doesn't matter what you vote, they'll just fix it.

xL

[Hugo Chavez]

a bit weird

...and also has an opinion which they feel a sudden desire to voice, which is, obviously, what troubles me.

xL

"a bit weird" is usually my reaction after meeting many London folk... In fact come to think of it

[xxxLinda]

look up weird.  it just means fate, that's all


xL


which is, obviously, what troubles me.  Because most sane people nowadays know that it doesn't matter what you vote, they'll just fix it.

...sorry, I amended and you posted.  Can't keep up.  But I'm not wasting my hard earned dosh on a phone-in poll which is rubbish, ok? 

'specially when they make you pay to just have your opinion blanked.

[xxxLinda]

anyways, my point was about how on earth people think there is any use in phoning in?

yo no comprendo.  Pile full of shit...



xL

[Hugo Chavez]

You need to lay off the booze linda...

[xxxLinda]

You need to lay off the booze linda...

tomorrow is Monday.  today it's the weekend!

I'll be fine.  I'm fairly certain there's something else I need to lay off before I quit drinking...