For me, I’d vote to cause all persons who were polled to also make a youtube video of their phone conversation with the pollster so I can see who they are, where they are, and their tones of voice, and judge for myself how in depth the poll was, whether anything was answered in depth, whether anyone had humor, or a sick baby, or a car broken down, or a mortgage they couldnt pay, or ten classic cars outside the kitchen window.
I’d vote to know/see/ and hear who exactly is being polled. I’d also vote to have every pollster also on video telling us why they work for pollsters, what they did for work before, what their actual aspirations are.
Frankly, I find polls of who is supposedly ahead or behind, sort of either redundant, yes we all guessed about Alan Keyes and The Donald et al, or sort of like men and women on the prowl at bars… near closing time. I know many of you know what I mean.
I guess I wonder why sportscasters and race car broadcasters dont just call up a bunch of people and ask who’s going to win and broadcast that before the race/game. Maybe that’s it, some of the pollsters are more like bookies than like evidence based scientists. It’s a mystery to me. Good thing I am Catholic. (meaning, when we were kids in Catholic school, if something theological or worldwise could not be explained, the nuns and brothers and priests would fold their hands, look heavenward and whisper, It’s a mystery, meaning an idea our pea-brains were too frail to grasp.) lol.
Or we could just ignore them. As some of the voters seem to be doing.
Palin’s and Cain’s and Paul’s and Obama’s follwers could care less about polls. They know what they know and no poll will change their vote. Nor should it.
Or we could educate ourselves about which polling group is which and what their agenda is, if they have one, and just pay attention to those that have been successful – if we really care at this early date.
Hi Dr. E:
With one generic exception, I look at polls as snapshots in time and nothing more. The exception is tracking polls like Gallup’s Presidential Preference Poll.
Gallup has asked a representative sample of likely voters whether they approve or disapprove of the president. It has done so monthly since 1936, and allowing for a margin of error, it provides a fascinating long-term perspective.
You’re right Dr. E. Context is everything, and when it is absent SO much of the actual meaning can be lost. Most of us who have been making comments and reading replies online for many years realize this on a very basic level. When you can’t see facial expression, hear inflection, tone, or sense nuance, then all you have are printed words. The effectiveness of this alone is very dependent on the ability of the writer – and the reader, which leaves much opportunity for misunderstanding. When it comes to political polls, well… I’ll just say I’m not a big fan.
I do,t beleive in polls because they are fickle in my opinion just as alot of people are, me included, from one instance to another and can and should be able to change their minds if something new comes up about the person who they voted on right? Also alot of polls depending on where the polling is going on is biased or slanted toward one person in a set of choices to be polled.
I remember a strew poll done on Ron Paul in a certain area ..had him a clear and prcise winner by a land slide, while if you fact-checked it the site was weighing heavily on him to win by his supporters that made it laughable.. this was the last election when he was also in the running for President and of course Obama won in the more legit polls as JC Spencer pointed out, as the months were closing in on the runners. I never even look at the polls because of another thing, they are used to give false impressions who is going to win..things can go either way in truth.
Well, I fall asleep a lot. So chip implants are out of the question,…and revolving those candidate front runners so often don’t help much either. I can see now that I’m going to have to start tasering myself to keep up.