Well, that's been going on much before this poll was posted...
Scott there has NOT polled 100% of GOP Primary voters to arrive at his 40-something percent conclusion. Therefor it is null, void and just plain stupid.
Well, no, that's not a good argument. The fact of the matter is, polling by reputable, professional, non-MSM polling houses - which Rasmussen is, btw - actually does a pretty good job of predicting the way things like elections will happen.
This is why all the FReepers who come on here and confidently predict that all the polls are wrong, and that the things they personally want to see happen - to use an example, O'Donnell winning the Delaware Senate race - will happen despite all the polling evidence to the contrary, invariably end up the day after the election gnashing their teeth and wailing about how stupid the voters in said locality must be.
Rasmussen doesn't need to poll 100% of GOP primary voters. Depending on his sample size, he's already going to be within 3-6% of the "real" number, within a 95% confidence level anywise.
One of the biggest misconceptions that people have about polling is that a poll CANNOT EVER be accurate or reliable if I PERSONALLY wasn't polled in it. Let's think about it a minute. There are, what, several tens of millions of GOP primary voters potentially out there. A poll samples anywhere from 500-1500 of them. The chances of you, personally, being polled is very tiny. But the statistical mathematics upon which polling is based works nevertheless. Even from such a tiny sample of the massive whole, you CAN ACTUALLY make reasonably accurate statements about the way something will go. You, personally, may not like this or agree with it, but it is true nevertheless.
Why even bother to continue discussing it, let alone turn it into a Palin supporter bash?
I don't really see a whole lot of "Palin supporter bash"ing. Indeed, it's the opposite. For the past few months, there has developed a small but very vocal cadre of Palin supporters who have taken to referring to ANYBODY who supports someone besides Palin as "RINOs," "sellouts," "establishment hacks" and the like. This is not only insulting to everyone else who supports, say, DeMint or Ryan or Cain or Bachmann or Barbour or whoever, but it is also simply and objectively a STUPID thing for them to be saying. Yet they say it, often and loudly, because of their presumption that they, and only they, are the good and the pure and the holy.
If they would simple stop being jerks to everyone else, I'd imagine a lot of the strife would simply go away.
Hmm, your response sounds as if you’ve got some bee in your bonnet about me. I can’t imagine why.
LOL, you should be so lucky. You asked me why I was a "tool" of a bogus, nonsensical (or whatever, your exact terminology on that point escapes me, but does not excite enough interest in me to go back and look it up) poll. Telling someone that they are a "tool" of something implies that they are incapable of thinking or acting for themselves, and that they're just a mindless drone. That, as you can probably (or should I say hopefully?) imagine, is a bit insulting, especially when it is being directed towards somebody who has probably thought on this very issue quite a bit more than you have, and who is in all likelihood better informed than you yourself are.
Is it very surprising that I would assume, from your unprovoked statement, that you're the type of person who just likes to go around trying to stir up trouble, since it can arguably we said that this is exactly what a statement like yours would normally tend to do?
*rolls eyes at the naivete of that post*
I don't think the nastiness began with the pro Palin folks. Pissant and a couple of others popularized the insult talking points, and a dozen others follow with nothing but derogatory postings. I'm not suggesting you're one of them, just saying what is pretty obvious to most on FR.
New York Times declared, “Thomas E. Dewey’s Election as President is a Foregone Conclusion.” Top pollsters predicted a Dewey win, as did leading national political writers. In fact, with the exception of Truman, everyone else was certain Dewey would be elected. Months before the election, Life ran a cover of a picture of Dewey with a caption that read, “The Next President of the United States.” Headline after headline screamed Dewey as President.
Hey Titus!.............remember this poll back in 48?! It was done by “top pollsters”.............!
I would be surprised if you could cite and quote a freeper saying “all polls are wrong’ sir. I think it more likely that somewhere sometime some freeper said “some are wrong” or “most are wrong” or “whatever”. But, Dewey vs Truman proves any freeper exactly correct who may have said “sometimes...polls are dead wrong”.