Posted on 10/22/2006 7:17:07 PM PDT by MHT
Twenty-five years after registering to vote, I finally got polled by a national news group. And, as usual, Rush was right. However, there are a few things which I want to share.
1. The interviewer really wanted to talk to me. I was on another call and told them to call me back in 10 minutes. They did, indicating to me that they are having difficulty reaching people who wish to talk to them.
2. The questions were phrased in a very subtle way that focused on an anti-Bush agenda. For example, "Do you think that Bush is responsible for the situation in Iraq?" That's a yes/no question. They could have made it multiple choice. At best, Bush gets a 50% chance of being blamed for Iraq instead of insurgents, radical Islam, outside funding, etc.
3. Similarly, other questions required yes/no answers where gradation would have been more appropriate. Only when I said that I couldn't answer yes/no about my approval of Congress was I offered an opportunity to be "supportive", "somewhat supportive", etc.
3. When they asked me who I was going to vote for in the Missouri Senate race, I told them and they immediately asked me if I was sure or if my mind could be changed. Is that really a polling question?
There is no question that this was a Democratically-biased poll and that the information is going to make others like me out to be rich suburbanites who are ignorant Christians living in fly-over territory blindly following a despictable President. If so, I'm proud to have done my share. At least there's one more loyal Republican that they can't ignore.
Actually, they then weight your answer as part of the 35 percent Republicans and take someone else as part of the 65 percent Democrats.
So you get only half a point that they need to count.
Same here... it was middle of last week. They'd ask a question with multiple parts and I'd argue that the question could contain contrary answers, and therefore invalid.
They never poll me, maybe that's because I always lie.
Did they identify themselves as part of an upcoming LA Times article?
sounds painful :)
I tell them I'm voting for Santa Claus.
You must be an anomaly. I get poll calls so much I've started telling them I'm a convicted felon and can't vote.
I have been attempted poll repeatedly. I always tell the to go "f" themselves and hang up.
I know where they are headed and quite frankly I don't want them to be able to generate accurate results. Then when the actual election result shows them to be full of s&!t, I am happier that I didn't participate.
Also, if they are getting accurate poll results then it also shows them the issues they need to hammer on to sway the election to the democRATS.
If I do answer I answer with things opposite of what I really think.
"Do you think that Bush is responsible for the situation in Iraq?"
Seems like a poor 'Yes/No' question for a poll trully designed to elicit information, which it probably wasn't.
The answer could be "Yes, the situation would be much worse if Bush had not taken action to oust Saddam."
Tell 'em to wait until the polls close Nov 7 and we'll all find out at the same time. What a concept.
Curses, foiled again!
I hate phone solicitations so much, I'd probably hang up regardless.
I have sometimes felt guilty about this, because maybe I could make a poll look better if I took the trouble to answer. But from what I see in the media and what you say, I think most of these are push polls, anyway. And I wouldn't put it past them to simply ignore or rule out any answers they don't like.
In other words, it's no longer possible to trust the pollsters.
We get polled at least once a week. Of course I always answer that Bush is evil and we need all of Congress to be Democratic and all of the state needs to be Democratic. Then the wife and I laugh and laugh seeing the poll numbers being reported. Maybe because we answer as we do is why we keep getting polled. Incidentally we vote straight GOP.
Yeah, that's legit.
Wait a minute, I thought the evil Bush was eavesdropping on everybody and recording their phone conversations! You mean that it's the pollsters that are spying on us?
I was telling all my friends to tell the Pollsters Demos all they way , That way after the Election it will be that much more entertaining. They will have to figure out how all those polls can be that far off and Blaming DieBold and ROVE!
By the way, when pollsters call me, I poll THEM
1. Are you employed to poll on behalf of any particular candidate or political party?
2. Do you know what "push polling" is?
3. Did your mother have any children that lived?
My union tells me that the government IS Santa Claus.
I wouldn't expect the MSM to ask someone how they thought things were going in Iraq, of course. And even if they did, the question would just be a different way of asking, "are we, the MSM, portraying the situation in Iraq as sufficiently hopeless?"
Friggin' useless polls.
I go them one better .. I have caller ID so I don't answer the phone.
Why should I tell them what I'm going to do - let them think they're going to win and then we'll skunk them election day!! I love it!!
The real polls are called "elections."
You deserve a reward for your sacrifice. MHT accurately described the loaded questions you gotta put up with.
I was polled by CBS News about 2 months ago, and I felt the same way, the questions needed more than a yes or no. But I did get to use "Islamofascist" and could hear the sneer in his tone when I told him I was an evangelical Christian. Even if I wasn't, I would've told him I was.
Hmmm....I got into a discussion about urban renewal on a listserv and someone wanted the price of new housing to follow a certain price range, with expensive houses integrated in with inexpensive ones. I pointed out this was a stupid idea -- once a house was classified into a certain price range, would its owner be forbidden from selling it at a price outside of that range? Also, when the county reassesses property, they do not examine every property, but rather the assessment of a nearby house carries more influence than one further away.
Someone else took issue with me and asked me why I had chosen to live in such an "economically diverse" area. I crunched the data from census.gov and reported that my lower income neighborhood wasn't as economically diverse as all that. Indeed, it was the affluent part of the county that was economically diverse. That was the end of that discussion.
I'm not sure if that pattern is generally true or not...your comment makes me wonder...hmmm....if you live in a very urban area (say metro LA or Chicago) with very small zip codes, maybe not.
You just don't understand, ALL of the polling organizations HAVE to slant the polls 15 - 25% in favor of democrats to accurately account for all of the vote fraud and illegal aliens...
This thread title sounds like a porno flick.
Gallup called me last week. I thought I'd gotten my chance.
Turned out it was a poll of which phone book I use and how often! The guy laughed and said, yeah, a lot of people are disappointed when they find that out after hearing the word "Gallup".
I was polled today. I asked repeatedly who the pollster was working for. She kept saying she didn't know, she only is doing the polling. I asked her, incredulously, "You don't know who you work for?" I knew this was a cruddy poll when she couldn't answer me.
1. Do you think the war in Iraq is failing?
2. Where do you get your opinion on the state of the war in Iraq? a) Newspapers b) TV News c) Comedy Shows
3. Do you believe our policies in Iraq, and the war on terror in general, should be based upon polls?
I was polled twice. The first time I was a Perot supporter. They stopped asking me questions. During the 2000 race, I told them that I support Raplh Nader. Both of those were lies. Maybe, I have been found out and won't be polled anymore.
I believe that it's called "geo-demographic clustering" and is used in marketing. A few years ago, politicos were using the same data to immediately air contrary and competitive ads in selected zip codes based on ads or sound bit previously shown by their rivals. The Dems had a national ad program which ran on autopilot by computer and it worked well before the RNC figured out the impact of the GOTV micro-networking.
I was polled three times for the mayor's race in the city of cincinnati. Trouble is, I don't live within 15 miles of the city limits.
Also, I have now been polled twice for the Second Congressional District (once in the primary, Schmidt vs, McEwen and once in the general, Schmidt vs Wulsin). Trouble is, I don't live there either.
They're getting closer: I'm only 10 miles from that border.
Can't wait to be polled on the Kentucky 4 race. (I live in Ohio.)
That sounds like a classic push poll question to me...
I'll bet they drop you as an "outlier"
What was the name of the group?
I got called about two weeks ago, and it was not a well-known nationally recognized polling outfit like Gallop, or Zogby, or Rasmuessen.
They gave their name so fast I can hardly recall it. It was 'Venus polling group' or something like that.
Anyway, it took about 15 minutes to answer all the questions (and they were definitely skewered against Republicans in very subtle ways.)
Once I realized it was legitimate pollster, my delimma was how to answer. I wanted to answer the questions in ways to put conservative Republicans in the best light, but how to do that??
I had just split seconds to decide how to answer: Should I just be up front and honest about my absolute support for conservative Republican candidates, or should I portray myself as an undecided moderate who has been won over by the GOP because "the Dems are wacky anti-US kooks"?
As a self-proclaimed "moderate voter", would I help show movement toward Republicans if I answered questions while also denouncing the Dems?
Or should I tell the pollster that I never vote Democrat.
Or should I say I voted for Clinton but am now disgusted with the Democrats because of their wimpy position on the War against Islamofascists?
After 15 minutes of topsy turvy questioning, I was confident that I had provided a fairly credible portrayal of an "independant" voter (although I am far from that moniker) who believes the GOP positions to be best for the country.
However, I think I blew it when the pollster asked who I voted for in 2000, Gore or GWB? Followed immediately by 2004, Kerry or GWB?
Somehow I couldn't openly out loud say that I voted for Kerry or Gore, and instead admitted that I voted for GWB both times.
To which the pollster paused for a few seconds, and then said, "Thank you. Our interview is finished."
So they mark you down as a vote for the (D) candidate then would be my guess.............
That is an unanswerable question. Of course the President is responsible for the situation in Iraq. He gave the command to go in based on evidence presented to him. He makes the overarching policy decisions. He is in charge of the men and women making tactical decisions.
That does not mean a person does not support the decision or the policies. Or that the actions of the enemy are his fault.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize the only answer is yes...and 100% of respondents should see it that way.
The difference, however, between us and them is this: do you think of the word "responsible" as a synonym for "blame" or do you think "responsible" means "decision-making problem solver." And therein lies the complete and utter contrast between liberals and conservatives.
Polls are as good at understanding public sentiment as sitting out this election is at sending a clear message.
I really don't recall who did the polling.
Caller ID cause me to never get polled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.