The difference between those who actually show up to vote and those who tell Pollsterats they'll "likely" show up to vote.


ibtardemocræls feel they're more or less the same. This, despite the limitations inherent in surveying people by telephone these days. The first one, to quote an early poll, is that almost 20 percent of U.S. cell phone owners consider "their cell phones as their No. 1 phone." Pollocrats don't call cell phones.

The next limitation is the time of day or day of the week Pollocrats attempt to make their calls. Most "likely voters" — that is, people with enough gumption and willingness to go out and patiently stand in line to cast their votes — likely fall into another demographic: the currently employed. Not too many of them are at home between, say, nine and five o'clock on any given weekday. The only other likely voters reachable there then are stay-at-home parents (less than three percent of all adults), work-at-home workers (less than four percent of all workers), living-at-home students (less than five percent of all adults), and retirees (about sixteen percent of all adults). Meaning, roughly three quarters of likely voters aren't home. And Pollocrats don't call workplaces or schools.

Wait a minute. My inner moonbat's screaming, "But, but, but don't they call people on weekends or at night?!" Rarely, my naive, tree-bark hugger. Even then it doesn't help matters since "the same people being polled on the weekdays are not available on the weekends." As for evenings, how many "I'm in the middle of dinner, doofus" published responses do you see after the typical Republican-Dhimmiqrat-Undecided ones? Now go back outside and find a nice spot to play on the highway.

Another limitation of Pollocrats' land line telephone surveys harassments conducted during weekdays is the type of people who are actually willing to respond to any. You know, people who have nothing better to do than spend about half an hour on the phone answering surveys. Like Deludedrats. The same thing happens on election day when Pollocrats physically enter a Republican stronghold and try to do an "exit poll," but are deluged by the overly eager minority of voters seeking a way to not only boost their self-esteem (as well as obey the marching orders of their moonbat-in-chief) but skew the results. For example, if only a quarter of all voters there are Dhimmiqrats, but they make up half the Pollocrats' respondents, the result can hardly be expected to reflect how everyone voted in that stronghold. It wouldn't be accurate unless the percentage of Dhimmiqrat respondents matched the percentage of Dhimmiqrat voters.

Hang on. My inner idiotarian has somehow made it back from the highway. "But, but, but, but you won't ever be able to tell if they match unless you poll everyone who voted!" Right, O automobile-dodging one. That's why we don't need Pollocrats or their surveys. Both are redundant when we have voting booths that record the exact same thing. Now here's a thirty-foot bungee cord. Go tie one end of it to a twenty-foot high bridge and jump off.

The most glaring, and thus most underreported limitation of Pollocrats' entrails readings is related to the last. The same kind of people who feel their answering surveys makes them special are the ones most likely to tell an entrails reader exactly what he feels the entrails reader wants to hear. This is a built-in feature of Dhimmiqrats. It's known as the Appeasement Gene™. They want to be liked by everyone, including Pollocrats. So if a Pollocrat says he's calling on behalf of SeespiNspiN or another Mediaqrat outfit, all the Dhimmiqrat respondents — i.e., most respondents — instinctively know that any answer they feel might be in the "rethuglicans's" favor is going to automatically "alienate" them forever from this elitist species of moonbat. Thus they answer as they feel they ought. Of course, the Dhimmiqrats' more dominant Prevarication Gene comes in quite handy in such circumstances.

Fortunately, the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism already highlighted many of these Pollocrats' tea-leafy limitations back in 2004.

Random sampling, the great strength of telephone polling, also became its Achilles heel this year. Telephone pollsters use machines that randomly dial phone numbers in specific geographic areas. With 95 percent of U.S. homes having telephones, pollsters developed great accuracy with the random-dialing method, usually calling elections within a point or two, said Jeffrey Levine, director of Rutgers University's Eagleton Center for Public Information Polling.

Cell phone use is rising, though, and greater numbers of young adults are choosing not to use land line telephones.

"Because of that," Levine said before election day "you could imagine an unprecedented youth turnout, so the election ends up looking a lot different from the polls."

Poll samples weaken when biases like telephone preference influence the data. Smaller samples mean greater margins of error and less effective polls. Pollsters now pay $40 to $50 for each completed telephone response, [veteran media and technology pollster Steven] Ross said, which has led to smaller sample pools. In the 2000 election, sample size was already becoming a big problem, Ross said.

"Polls were coming out week after week," Ross said. "I kept screaming, 'Bigger sample! Bigger Sample!' We never learned that lesson. News organizations want to do this on the cheap. If they can get enough out of it and they can hype it, that's all they care about."

Even just days before an election, Zogby (Pollocrat-NY) was wrong in all close Senate 2002 races but one; and practically all Pollocrats incorrectly predicted another 2000-like "squeaker" in the 2004 presidential race. Of course, as Wolfstar (Freeper-USA) points out, the day after the election all of them promptly resorted to the stand-by "Break Out" Excuse® in their press releases.

There is no objective way to evaluate the accuracy of all polls except those taken immediately prior to an election. The election results provide actuals against which poll estimates can be compared.

Far more often than not, poll estimates do not compare favorably to actual results. When the miss is significant enough, some excuse is always found to explain why the election "broke" one way or the other at the last minute. Did it really "break" or were the polls just wrong throughout the election season? (I vote for the latter.)

(I vote "polls just wrong" too.)

What it all boils down to is that Pollocrats' pollnogstications are meant only to "have an EFFECT on mass behavior," not predict that behavior.

People are so caught up in their own daily lives and what new toy or experience they will have next, me included, that subconsciously it is easier to go with the flow.

Or, as the Al-Qaeda Times confessed two years ago, Pollstal Balls™ are for "shaping opinion (of) wishy-washy voters" and thus "can be self-confirming." Such as when an old Gypsy woman gazes into her crystal orb and says you better do this and that or else confront the Looming Face O' Unalterable Doom — and if you believe, guess what, you do exactly as she says! Then you come back and thank her for helping you avoid such a horrible fate.

Just to imagine how a conversation with someone who may or may not be at home at two o'clock in the afternoon, and has twenty minutes to kill responding to a Pollsterat's questions, might go:

Pollsterat: (dials 234-555-6789)
Respondent: (phone rings and rings and rings and rings and rings and rings... because she's out shopping for diapers for her two-year-old.)
Pollsterat: (hangs up)

Er, let's try again.

Pollsterat: (dials 246-555-1359)
Respondent: Hello. We're not in right now because, unlike Demoqrats, we work in the afternoons and have things called lives. If you'd like to leave a message—
Pollsterat: (hangs up)

Well, you've got to expect things like that. We won't count this call either. Let's moveon.

Pollsterat: (dials 321-555-2468)
Respondent: (phone rings and rings and) Hello?
Pollsterat: Hello. I'm calling on behalf of the Pew-Zogby CNNABCBS-USA Today Galloping Hector polling firm. We would like your opinion on the upcoming congressional election. Could you please spare us approximately twenty minutes of your time to answer our polling questions?
Respondent: No. (hangs up)
Pollsterat: (hears dial tone)

How rude! Rude people we don't count, anyway. So let us moveon again.

Pollsterat: (dials 357-555-1324)
Respondent: (phone rings and rings and rings and rings and) Yuh, whah, who's calling? (hick*up!)
Pollsterat: Hello. I'm calling on behalf of the Pew-Zogby CNNABCBS-USA Today Galloping Hector polling—
Respondent: The whah? Huh? (belch!)
Pollsterat: Yes, sir. I'm calling on behalf of the Pew-Zogby CNNAB—
Respondent: Few?
Pollsterat: No, sir. The Pew-Zogby CN—
Respondent: What's a zodbee?
Pollsterat: Please, sir. If you'll let me finish. I'm calling on behalf—
Respondent: Whaddya want? Who is this! (burp!)
Pollsterat: That's what I'm trying to tell you, sir. The Pew-Zogby CNNABCBS-USA Today Galloping—
Respondent: Listen, I already get USA Today. (bleeh!)
Pollsterat: Okay, sir. Thank you for your time.
Respondent: Yeah, whaddevva. Bye.
Pollsterat: Goodbye. (hangs up)

Retarded drunks are definitely not part of our "random sample." So once more we moveon.

Pollsterat: (dials 654-555-3210)
Respondent: (phone rings and rings and rings and) Hola?
Pollsterat: Hello. I'm calling on behalf of the Pew-Zogby CNNABCBS-USA Today Galloping Hector polling firm. We would like your opinion on the upcoming congressional election. Could you please spare us approximately twenty minutes of your time to answer our polling questions? ... Hello?
Respondent: Sí? No hable inglés.
Pollsterat: Oh, sorry. Goodbye.
Respondent: Adiós. (hangs up)
Pollsterat: (hears dial tone)

Unassimilated undocument workers illegal aliens aren't on the "random" list either. Let's moveon then.

Pollsterat: (dials 369-555-1470)
Respondent: (phone rings and rings and rings, then emits a high-pitched) *bee-dee-deeeee* (from its automatic anti-telemarketing zapper before hanging up)
Pollsterat: (hears dial tone)

Those devices are so annoying. Anyway, shall we moveon? Good.

Pollsterat: (dials 369-555-1470)
Respondent: (phone rings and rings and rings and rings and) Hello?
Pollsterat: Hello. I'm calling on behalf of the Pew-Zogby CNNABCBS-USA Today Galloping Hector polling firm. We would like your opinion on the upcoming congressional election. Could you please spare us approximately twenty minutes of your time to answer our polling questions?
Respondent: Sure.
Pollsterat: Great. First, I need to ask you if you plan to vote this election.
Respondent: No. Mother tells me I can't vote until I'm eighteen.
Pollsterat: Can I speak to you mother, then?
Respondent: She's doing the laundry right now. But I'll go get her.
Pollsterat: That's all right. Thank you for your time.
Respondent: Okay. Bye.
Pollsterat: Goodbye. (hangs up)

Hey, we were close, okay! How about we moveon.

Pollsterat: (dials 482-555-5937)
Respondent: (phone rings and rings and) Hello?
Pollsterat: Hello. I'm calling on behalf of the Pew-Zogby CNNABCBS-USA Today Galloping Hector polling firm. We would like your opinion on the upcoming congressional election. Could you please spare us approximately twenty minutes of your time to answer our polling questions?
Respondent: Twenty minutes?
Pollsterat: Approximately, ma'am. Do you think you—
Respondent: I'm sorry, hon. I don't have time right now.
Pollsterat: Okay, ma'am. Thank you.
Respondent: All right. Goodbye.
Pollsterat: Goodbye. (hangs up)

Yeah, but if she did have the time she might have answered our questions. We were really close then. Which means it's time to moveon some more.

Pollsterat: (dials 725-555-6140)
Respondent: (phone rings and rings and rings and rings and) Hello?
Pollsterat: Hello. I'm calling on behalf of the Pew-Zogby CNNABCBS-USA Today Galloping Hector polling firm. We would like your opinion on the upcoming congressional election. Could you please spare us approximately twenty minutes of your time to answer our polling questions?
Respondent: I reckon.
Pollsterat: Thank you, sir. First, I need to ask you if you plan to vote this election.
Respondent: I'm not sure.
Pollsterat: Is that definite?
Respondent: No, it's not definite. If it was I'd have said yes or no.
Pollsterat: What I mean, sir, do you think you might change your mind and decide to either vote or not vote?
Respondent: I may. But not right now.
Pollsterat: Okay, sir. Thank you for your time.
Respondent: You don't want me to answer your questions?
Pollsterat: Sir, we only ask the opinions of people who are planning to vote this election.
Respondent: Well, I didn't say I wouldn't. Then again, I didn't say I would. Only that I might.
Pollsterat: I'm sorry, sir. We're only allowed to ask people who say that they will.
Respondent: Reckon that leaves me out, then.
Pollsterat: Yes, sir. But thank you for your time.
Respondent: Alrighty.
Pollsterat: Goodbye.
Respondent: Bye. (hangs up)
Pollsterat: (hears dial tone)

So close we could just smell it! That's why we're definitely going to moveon.

Pollsterat: (dials 842-555-1397)
Respondent: (phone rings and) Hello?
Pollsterat: Hello. I'm calling on behalf of the Pew-Zogby CNNABCBS-USA Today Galloping Hector polling firm. We would like your opinion on the upcoming congressional election. Could you please spare us approximately twenty minutes of your time to answer our polling questions?
Respondent: Why, I'd be happy to.
Pollsterat: Thank you, sir. I need to ask you first, do you plan to vote this election?
Respondent: Why, of course.
Pollsterat: That's great. Then here is the next question: If you voted today, which candidate for office would you choose? The supersmart, nice, honest, wonderful, and overall really excellent Demoqrat? Or the dumb, evil, lying, icky, and just plain stinky Rethuglican?
Respondent: Well, if you put it that way — why, the supersmart, nice, honest, wonderful, and overall really excellent Demoqrat, of course!
Pollsterat: Thank you, sir. Now, a few questions about your employment and how you voted in the past.
Respondent: Why, okay.
Pollsterat: Are you currently employed?
Respondent: Why, no.
Pollsterat: Okay, then. Did you vote in any previous elections?
Respondent: Why, no.
Pollsterat: None at all?
Respondent: Why, no.
Pollsterat: Are you a registered voter?
Respondent: Why, no.
Pollsterat: Then how can you vote in next month's election?
Respondent: There's an election next month?
Pollsterat: Why, yes. You didn't know?
Respondent: Why, no.
Pollsterat: Well, then. Thank you for answering our questions. I hope you'll go out and vote on November 7th.
Respondent: Why, that's the day my grandchildren are coming over to visit me, I think.
Pollsterat: But you will be voting that day, also, won't you?
Respondent: Why, of course. Do you know where I'm supposed to go do that?
Pollsterat: No, sir. I don't. I'm sure you can find the number to your local election office in the telephone book. They can tell you.
Respondent: Why, that's a grand idea. Would you call them for me?
Pollsterat: I'm sorry, sir. I'm calling from out of state and have other calls to make. We're on a really tight schedule.
Respondent: Why?
Pollsterat: Please, sir. I have to go now. I hope you find that number to your election office.
Respondent: Why do I need their number?
Pollsterat: Thank you for your time, sir. Goodbye.
Respondent: Why, goodbye then.
Pollsterat: (hangs up)

Close enough. We'll count it. Besides, what can be more random than senility?

Automated calls and tape-recorded questions have additional problems. Such as the Miami respondent who presses 3 for her answer when she meant to press 1. Just don't expect Pew-Zogby-etc.-etc. to grant her any revote.

Until the Pollocrats start releasing the total number of attempted calls they made as they whittled down their "random" sample of respondents, including people who provided no recordable responses but nonetheless may still be "likely voters," it's obvious their tea leaves serve only one discernible purpose: To influence — not predict — how we'll vote.

	11:12 AM

Comments (registered users)