Sep
27
2012

#rsrh I just realized what’s bugging all of those High-D pollsters…

…(not to mention their pet interpreters).  It’s not that they’re getting their methodology and professional qualifications (and basic morality*) questioned; it’s that they’re having that done to them now by people whose commentary will show up in a Google search.  This is apparently… disconcerting to them.

I know, I know: we have worse done to us every day.  Yes, and we’ve developed scar tissue accordingly.  Show a little empathy, willya? These folks aren’t used to being challenged, bless their hearts…

Moe Lane

*Yeah.  Cut that last one out unless you have pictures, or something.

18 Comments

  • acat says:

    Would you mind asking Erick to read this?

    Mew

  • mbecker908 says:

    Not likely to be cross posted at RS. It would leave a real mark.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368 says:

    acat: I see you have been lurking and Becker I am going to demand Politico pay me for plagarizing my anticipation of Byers’ article.

  • Catseye says:

    They’ve never really had to deal with pushback before and it shows! Seems like the left is having that problem a lot these days.

  • Earlgrey says:

    Well I am going to continue the conversation. . .I see what you are saying every day. Liberals at work, social events have always felt comfortable talking their nonsense knowing it won’t be challenged. Now that conservatives are challenging them they start saying it is stupid garbage like hate speech, because it goes against the rules that they have been living by for so long. THey can’t deal.

  • acat says:

    @Catseye – the last time they had to deal with pushback, it was named Lee Atwater… and Ronald Reagan. Had Breitbart stayed with us a bit longer …

    Mew

  • Rob Crawford says:

    I don’t think the poll companies are being immoral or unethical. They’re giving their paying customers just what they’ve asked for. Remember that their paying customers are the press, and that the press will gleefully lie for Obama. The polls aren’t being commissioned by people interested in the truth; they’re being commissioned by people who need propaganda and easy stories..

  • acat says:

    A point, Rob .. sometimes their paying customers are the campaigns.

    CAC over at Ace of Spades had a piece up during the Walker 2011 recall showing the differences between some of the “poll averaging” findings with and without a series of Barrett internal polls.

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368 says:

    acat: Of course, you could really be devious and run a hit on another pollster to discredit him by saying he had done work for Republicans which said pollster disclosed while at the same time, you are at best a surrogate of the Obama campaign and at worst a consultant which of course you did not disclose. Moe: I am assuming gratuitous slaps at Nate Silver’s credibility are allowed? 🙂 If not, I certainly apologize to Nate Silver for calling him a devious hack.

  • Demosthenes says:

    Frankly, Moe, you’re more generous than I am. Why shouldn’t their basic morality be called into question, at least in some respects? It’s not moral to lie for gain.

  • Demosthenes says:

    Let me defend that last statement. While there is a reasonable amount of leeway in determining what the electorate’s composition will look like this November (which would lead to an acceptable deviation in poll numbers), any pollster worth his/her salt should be able to see that the 2012 environment will not be as favorable to Democrats as the 2008 environment was, and it certainly will not be 5-6 points MORE favorable across the board. So anyone who projects such an overly rosy scenario is either a) incompetent or b) knowingly dishonest. Since I doubt incompetent pollsters get hired by such generally reputable organizations, that leads me to the belief that they’re doing it knowingly. And you wouldn’t risk damaging long-term organizational credibility unless you had something to gain from it. Hence, lying for gain. Hence, immoral. QED.

  • Catseye says:

    The dishonesty is actually making cons more likely to vote and dems less likely(i.e., “Romney’s going to need every vote he can get” versus “O’Bama’s going to win anyway so it’s not that important that I show up”). Funny how that works out isn’t it?

  • Xasteius says:

    The high Dem turnout basically gives cover for the dead and fictional to vote.

  • acat says:

    Be careful, Xasteius.. that way lies “grand conspiracy!”…

    Mew

  • Free-range Oyster says:

    @acat – not so much a grand one as a string of related but uncoordinated small ones.

  • Murgatroyd says:

    A sufficiently advanced evil is indistinguishable from ACORN.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com