[Wolfstar]

But, you have tried to take your results and claim that they are valid for all polls generally.

Again, this was a CASE study. The case being the California recall and how 20 polls did in predicting the outcome. I am not claiming anything other than that the results of this study demonstrate that polls can't be trusted. How is the general public to know which poll is accurate and which is not. What benchmark can they use? Why should they take your word, or my word, or anyone's word that some polls are accurate? Which ones?

I do agree that this case study is similar to polling in this way: Polls take a small sample of respondents and use them as a case study from which to extrapolate opinions held by the public at large. If small sample size is a flawed approach for a case study, certainly the same must hold true for polling.

[Wolfstar]

Midday ping. Interesting discussion. If this thread just gets folks to thinking about the central point — that there is no objective way to verify the accuracy of most polls — then all this effort will have been worth it.

[RatSlayer]

you said:

"I do agree that this case study is similar to polling in this way: Polls take a small sample of respondents and use them as a case study from which to extrapolate opinions held by the public at large. If small sample size is a flawed approach for a case study, certainly the same must hold true for polling."

Yeah, now your starting to get it. I'm not disputing your conclusions. In fact, I think you're right that most polls can't be trusted. I'm just saying that your methodology falls short of what is needed for proof. And that in some ways, it falls short in the same way that polls fall short.

BTW, if you'd like to see some examples of polling that are usually highly accurate, take a look at exit polls. They are generally much more accurate than pre-election polls (or almost any other type of poll for that matter).