« The Former Propaganda Twins Speak | Main | The coming "cataclysmic fight to the death." »

October 30, 2006

Comments

To pick one question out of a group doesn't really give the flavor of the poll.

What are the other questions?

I personally don't get phone polls because they can't get through my phone firewall.

essentially -
1. If this is solicitation, or a poll, please hang up and don't call again
2. If this call is important please press 3 on your touchpad.
3. Have a nice day.

[[People that know me, press 3 right away to get through.]]

I got one from Polling Point this weekend via email. They certainly knew who all my candidates were, asking about specific races, and the issues were definitely written with an obvious rightward bias. Lots of abortion questions. I figured, fine, I'll mess with you right back. I went hard left with all my answers, unless the choices were horrendous then I simply checked "Don't know." I refuse to be cornered into an answer they want me to give.

Anyone know the deal with Polling Point? I searched on blogger.com and didn't see anything about them.

What William Ockham said, plus the question as phrased is inappropriate any time, anywhere.

Thanks for the prompts. Sorry to ruffle the feathers the wrong way.

Ok, I see.
I have no excuse except expecting to see everything
right away.

:)

I am glad I have a phone firewall.

It keeps out the computer calls also.

For folks who know how to use their browser,

Click on the links in the post and you'll see a list the questions asked by the pollsters in question and some very good discussion of the various techniques involved. If you can't be bothered to follow the links, don't criticize the post.

DemFromCT,

I realize that the way the question as phrased conjures up all sorts of awful imagery, but is the average person so ignorant of reality as to not realize that medical research on pregnant women and their fetuses happens every single day (and all medical research is "experimental" in one form or another). This sort of research is completely non-controversial and has added immensely to our understanding of biology, disease, and the dangers of all sorts of different drugs taken during pregnancy. The forces of ignorance baffle me.

One thing that the GOP's GOTV may not be taking into account is the disatisfaction on the part of many people who voted for Bush in 2004. Either the polls are wrong, or there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction among moderate Pubs and Independents who must have voted for Bush or he wouldn't have won. These people may be contacted and the contact will remind them to vote against the GOP candidates. This used to be the Dems' problem, in that there were registered Dems who had swung over to voting GOP but didn't change their registraton, and who would be contacted by Dems and vote for the GOP.

It will bew very interesting to see how this plays out in the Midwest and West, in particualr, although most of the attention is in the Northeast.

Charlie Cook was just on MSNBC after visiting us yesterday on Daily Kos, reiterating there's absolutely no change in the landscape, and is not pretty for the GOP.

I just want to say how pleased I am Charlie Cook made an appearance at Kos. He could just as easily have taken the standard, Joe Klein approach (highlight the dumbest anonymous post you can find, use it to discredit the entire site and call the whole group whackos); instead, he engaged, and was treated with due respect. Great stuff.

I think this is the point in the election cycle where meta-narratives, like what Cook offers, matter far more than individual-race polls -- whether positive- or negative-moving. This is easier said than done for all of us, but, unless you're personally involved in a given race, it does little good to glance at the latest up-to-the-moment polling sample (Menendez up by 8! No -- he's down by 3!). There will be an encompassing trend in the last week/days that pushes races one way or another...possibly a slight return home for GOPers, pulling some of their not-quite-lost candidates back from the fire; or, a final "we've been mad all year and we really mean" tilt to Dems, in which case, as both Cook and Rothenberg suggest, we could see even more GOP defeats than moderately optimistic Dem forecasters envision. The overall gestalt suggests the latter, and we here will all root for that. But, my main point: don't take the latest Rasmussen/McClatchy/Quinnipiac as necessarily the ultimate harbinger. At this point, we simply have to wait for the vote tabulation.

Just a note for posterity's sake, Typepad went a bit hinky today and the comments to this post are not appearing in the right order.

demtom, I couldn't have been more pleased, and I couldn't agree with you more. As someone observed, it was like Phil Jackson or Pat Reilly dropping by to chat about basketball with us.

William Ockham, I haven't a clue as to why it happened.

Personally I think that it was because he was speaking to me in a rude manner.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad