This is actually a response to a posting I did under the Role of Political Reporters letters page. In the interest of having the last word, I've dropped it in here for greater visibility. So if you are passing by Kitt and Glenn, I appreciate your opinion, and respond to it thusly:

Kitt, what is the control to prove that polls are in fact correctly mirroring public attitudes? Most elections are won on the basis of one or two percentage points, not an overwhelming demonstration of the accuracy of polls as far as I'm concerned. Nor do I consider consistency a hallmark of accuracy, as anyone could imagine, if you are using consistntly using the same flawed set of assumptions, you will be wrong and consistently so. In this regard, I would point out that most nation and state wide polls are conducted by phone, in an age where fewer and fewer mainstream people have lan lines, or answer the phone without knowing who is calling. As I noted, other kinds of polling do seem to be based on more mainstream populations, i.e, exit polls. The polls conducted by the Desmoine Register, interestingly enough, contradicted most of the nation wide polls.

Finally, there is an unquantifiable head-nodding affect that emerges from our polling culture. In my honest, and unverifiable opinion, I sincerely think that most people don't bother to have an opinion about something until they perceive a groundswell of opinion, which is usually directed to them by the media and is based on polling. Everyone knows George Bush is unpopular, but what if his popularity is actually in single digits, not double? We'll most likely never know. I suppose I'm being extreme by calling for an end to polling, but it certainly has borne an uncontrollable monster that is threatening the idea of democracy, where ideas and candidates are dahsed to bits before they ever reach the ballot box, and winners are declared before there is even an election. I perhaps should have been more precise by calling for an end to phone based polling.

And Glenn, yes, you probably never did say that, though I had a feeling you had. Sorry,in any case, I don't have the time to research your previous blogs (or the desire, you do admit your mistakes which is why I continue to be a big fan of your blog).

"but why assume that all other voting humans in this country are operating at the same sub-standard emotional levels as these media fools?"

The last two presidential elections, perhaps? The "kind of guy you want to have a beer with."

"that the liberal 'big fear' (that the country will get misled and horrible things will happen) is the same energetic as the conversative 'big fear' (that a big bad terrorist will kill everybody)."

Former: proven, repeatedly (see last seven years).

Latter: not so much, despite one sensational event that killed fewer Americans than "we" kill on our own.

And, I thought the conservative "big fear" du jour, was brown people sneaking across the border to steal our jobs and healthcare and enrage us for having to hear "for Spanish, press 9?"

wow-

post illegal skinny-dip swimming in a private pool...

...in lieu of towels, using a loud-leaf-blower to dry off...

the cops are called because of the leaf-blower-noise. Yea-243.

My respect. okay.

Oh, nabbed. okay.

all 'um so naked.

The two-headed beast should be offered a choice: keep the Edison/Mitofsky/NEP exit polls or keep your FCC licenses....

Only one thing to say to that rant.

A*M*E*N !!!!!

I assume you are referring to the idea that the media chooses candidates as my assumption that other voters are sheep? No. The media chooses candidates by knocking them out of the race, by selectively disallowing them to participate in media fora, by disproportionately affecting their fundraising, and by being the cause of the fundraising need.

As for whether or not intelligent, informed people are influenced by concerted propaganda or collective withholding of information, I have lived in a country with government media control. Believe me, very intelligent, informed people are influenced by propaganda in ways that they cannot perceive from inside the society where it is practiced pervasively. Or don't believe me, go live in one yourself and see how fast you succumb (you won't notice until you leave again, trust me).

My comments about the polling data have to do with very real withholding of information that would speak to the validity of election results in 2004 on grounds that the media consortium (NEP) owned the data as intellectual property, and that it was proprietary and confidential. As well, the New York Times is on record as stating that they withheld information from voters during that cycle that the administration of the sitting president, himself a candidate, had broken the law (the NSA wiretapping).

To the contrary, I had assumed that if the media had to expose their own persona to the drivel they drum up on the candidates -- the cost of their haircuts, their business connections, their unprofessional behavior, they would be so afraid of what informed intelligent voters might think of them that they might decide that reporting the issues and the whole news was more important.

it'~s worth a cheer-up-read to read all of Cicero.

or just condense the 'read' to Shooter 243! yep!

yep. i agree. smart points.

perhaps you and glenn can start a training program: "how to sift through the bullshit and find your true beliefs? or ... how i learned to stop worrying and love the f***ed up media"

http://concordmonitor.com/

President - Dem Primary

New Hampshire - 33 of 301 Precincts Reporting - 11%

Name Party Votes Vote %

Clinton , Hillary Dem 12,978 38%

Obama , Barack Dem 12,097 36%

Edwards , John Dem 5,650 17%

Richardson , Bill Dem 1,430 4%

Kucinich , Dennis Dem 637 2%

Everyone knows George Bush is unpopular, but what if his popularity is actually in single digits, not double? We'll most likely never know.

-- omooex

You've basically just said the same thing you said earlier without having done any research to see if any of your thoughts on polling are based in reality or just your own ideas as to what works and what doesn't.

I have nothing to add to what I already posted to you the first time. You're guessing about the 'single digits'. Why will we "most likely" never know? That context free statement doesn't move your thesis forward.