I am a doctor, but I am not a physician.

I run into physicians all the time. Arrogant people who don't know shit about shinola.

You are probably in surgery, that would be my guess. Surgeons are the most arrogant and stupid at the same time. They know cutting, but nothing else.

Yep, physicians are arrogant, stiff-necked and often wrong. Your medical career is well on its way. You have had your nose rubbed in the data. The data is IN FRONT OF YOUR NOSE.

But, well versed in your medical training, you just ignore it because YOU'RE A FUCKING PHYSICIAN, and YOU GET TO IGNORE DATA.

Doctors who are not physicians understand the arrogance and cluelessness of physicians well. Remember, when it comes down to it, physicians are just mechanics who work on colons and such. Doctors are there to help them and wipe their butts.

Thank you for your conciatory message. Rather than denigrating my poll, which is one from a perfectly acceptable polling firm, you should think carefully about your reflexive defensiveness about your own position.

The FACTS are that during the primary, 1 thing happened (hispanics favored CLinton), but after the primary a different reality is found (hispanics greatly favor Obama). Please do not confuse your belief with reality. To counter my poll, you need another CONTEMPORARY poll comparing Obama and McCain without Hillary in the poll.

While opinions about polls may vary, you cannot simply dismiss a public poll by saying "Poof." You need a poll of your own countering mine, and then we can talk. Until then, you are just blowing smoke, and defensiveness about a weak hand is not a good place to be.

Looking carefully at the poll, the poll might have UNDERESTIMATED Obama's support by certain groups, as indicated by the following:

"The NBC/Journal survey was conducted of 1,000 registered voters from June 6-9; Hillary Clinton officially suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama on June 7. The poll has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points."

That is, the poll was conducted during the period in which she was still active. Roughly 50 % of respondents were contacted while her campaign was still active, and thus specific support might be MUCH higher for Obama. It could also be lower of course, and we will need to see another poll (wait 10 minutes).

Please, try to be reasonable. I am a reasonable guy, and prefer a sensible argument. When you are in trouble, stop digging is my advice.

Although I am not a pollster, I do know something about polling.

You say:

"If a pharmaceutical company funds research about a drug they are putting through the various phases of clinical trials, wouldn't you be a little suspicious of the possible bias in their findings?"

Of course, but this is not like that.

"If a psychiatrist comes up with 5 new categories in the DSM-IV, and publishes research articles on them, won't you be suspicious as to whether those categories really exist or not?"

No, of course not. I would look at his/her data, because that is the point of the article. Being suspicious is not the correct approach. Ensuring that they did things correctly is the attitude. I know psychiatry, trust me on that, and I have (of this I am 100 % certainty) far more skepticism as someone who has studied the ratings process very closely than most people.

"I am suspicious of MSNBC because they have shown from a long time ago that they are biased in favor of Obama."

Well, we disagree on that. It's simply not true. You have no evidence on this score.

"That is why I am loathe to believe their poll. I would love to find one from a more neutral source but unfortunately, can't find one. But I don't think that just any info is better than no info. That's not very scientific."

Well, here we are at the nut of the issue. If you have a poll and I have a poll and they differ, we can talk about bias, and about wording of questions and all that stuff. But if you don't have a poll, you have nothing. And, most importantly, you cannot allow your PERSONAL PREJUDICES about a poll influence your beliefs about the findings. You must bring something objective to the table, and you have not. So, you need better data.

And, yes, we can bring this little conversation to a halt. Please, however, remember the cardinal rule: When in trouble and in a hole, stop digging.

In point of fact, ethanol is a manner of producing fuel. It is not a moral choice.

You can be in favor of ethanol, or opposed, and still be a moral individual. If you are a politician from IL, IO, NE, KS, IN, OH, KY, TN, or about 6 other states, you are in favor of ethanol because THAT HELPS YOUR CONSTITUANTS.

And, last I looked, representing the interests of your voters is the ONLY REASON POLITICIANS EXIST.

What the fuck is WRONG with people? This is the STUPIDEST thing I have heard since I read all those whining Hillary whiners and their whining.

"You say do something constructive with my anger. I am. I am switching from Democrat to Republican."

No problem, honey.

Get me some coffee while you're over there in Serious Women Only Need Apply Heaven. And, when they are raping you, just remember, relax!! Enjoy it!!! After all, you VOTED FOR THIS SHIT.