Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/07/2025 3:37:15 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Patrick Ruffini is a co-founder of Echelon Insights, a research and analytics firm.
By the time 2028 rolls around, high-quality polling of the presidential race may prove very hard to come by. And it won’t be because of a natural evolution in how Americans take polls — something we pollsters are all too familiar with — but because of a switch that’s set to be flipped next month at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California.
Apple’s new mobile operating system, iOS 26, includes a new feature designed to curb unwanted spam calls and text messages. It will do so by segregating texts that come from outside a recipient’s contacts into an unknown senders screen, where they are likely to languish unchecked. For unknown callers, the phone will automatically respond on users’ behalf to request more information before asking if they would like to pick up.
Many will cheer the likely disappearance of political fundraising texts and robocalls around election season. But not all “unknown sender” messages are created equal. The collateral damage from this update is likely to include local businesses — like those that text you to confirm a dinner reservation or doctor’s appointment — and legitimate survey research, encompassing everything from political polls to public health surveys from government agencies.
Good polling is built around the idea of probability sampling, where everyone in the population has an equal chance of being included in the survey. That means reaching out to potential respondents using the most ubiquitous technology currently in use. For a long time, this was the landline telephone. In the golden age of polling, you could call people on their home phone, and roughly one-third of people you called would not only pick up but also complete the survey.
As Americans switched to mobile phones, so too...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Pollsters ARE spam.
Exactly—it is unsolicited calling.
I would never speak to them.
So now doing cold call polling is democracy.
How about this for a crazy idea: politicians truthfully say what they believe and we vote for those who match our desires for the direction of the country without constant fine tuning based on polls.
and apparently the compost thinks they are the equivalent to “democracy”
Never heard of this guy, so I took a look (it’s Wiki, so...)
Ruffini served as webmaster for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Following the 2008 election, Ruffini co-authored the Rebuild the Party platform for Republican renewal
In 2013, he was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage in the United States during the Hollingsworth v. Perry case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Ruffini
According to: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users:
| Age | iPhone | Android |
|---|---|---|
| 18-34 | 58% | 41% |
| 18-34 | 58% | 41% |
| 35-54 | 47% | 53% |
| 55 and older | 49% | 51% |
What would happen if there were no more polls?
I think that would be a good thing!
But then what would 24/7 news channels talk about? They would have to make up stuff.
Mmmm, Ok, so no change.
Oh and like any typical Bushie he’s infected with TDS
Stay out da Bushes
Gee willikers, what did we do before cell phones???
I don’t respond to polls because I don’t want to take the risk of saying the wrong thing to the wrong people. At the very least, you will put your job at risk or face harassment from the government if folks find out that you are anti Democrat and anti Wall Street Republican.
The pollster might be honest, but in today’s environment, it isn’t worth the risk.
Those who operate the campigns, however, are paying themselves very nice fees - and screaming the loudest about "democracy" because they face the horrifying prospect of having to get real jobs.
>> Good polling is built around the idea of probability sampling, where everyone in the population has an equal chance of being included in the survey.
Oh, please. Just stop it. Ruffini you know damn well that 99% of polling is push-polling to a well-targeted audience so the results can be turned into fake “newz” stories.
What is democracy? It seems to be a mush word for anything that pleases collectivists.
I already only allow known people to call me on my phone. Why should texting be any different? Ruffini comes across as an idiot.
It's response was very good. It handled my pretend 21st century offense at historical usages that are popular today very well. But it really should have taken me to task for immaturely applying today's overly sensitive culture to historical situations.
Grok's answer: "Churchill’s use of “guttersnipe” to describe Hitler was harsh, but it’s worth looking at the context. In 1938, during a speech, Churchill used the term to express his contempt for Hitler’s character and rise from obscure, rough beginnings to a dangerous dictator. The word, meaning someone from the lowest social strata, was meant to sting, reflecting Churchill’s view of Hitler as both morally and socially contemptible. This was a time when Hitler’s aggressive policies—annexing Austria, threatening Czechoslovakia—were escalating, and Churchill was among his fiercest critics, using sharp rhetoric to rally opposition.
Was it overly judgmental? Churchill’s language was calculated, not casual. He aimed to dehumanize Hitler rhetorically, emphasizing his perceived lack of legitimacy and moral standing. The term’s edge was deliberate, meant to provoke and underscore the threat. But it’s also a product of its time—politicians then used vivid, often personal insults to make points. Today, such language might feel crude or offensive for its classist undertone, implying someone’s origins dictate their worth. If that offends you, it’s understandable; the term can seem elitist or unnecessarily derogatory.
Still, Churchill’s judgment was rooted in Hitler’s actions—his brutal regime was already evident by 1938. The term wasn’t just a personal jab; it was part of a broader campaign to paint Hitler as unfit to lead, contrasting with the appeasement policies Churchill opposed. Whether it was “overly” judgmental depends on whether you think the moral and strategic urgency justified the rhetoric. Hitler’s record—genocide, war, oppression—makes Churchill’s assessment seem less excessive in hindsight, even if the word choice grates now.
If you’re offended, it might be worth weighing whether the issue is the term itself or the broader context of Churchill’s uncompromising stance. What specifically about the language bothers you? That could help unpack it further.
Grok's reply to me (still not calling me an effete 21st century cuck, though)
"Haha, I hear ya—the word “guttersnipe” does have a nasty bite, like a verbal jab that sends you reaching for comfort snacks and a cozy blanket! Churchill picked it for exactly that sting. In 1938, he was trying to slap Hitler’s image down hard, painting him as a lowlife who clawed his way up from nothing to wreak havoc. The term’s raw edge—literally evoking someone from the gutters—was meant to shock and rally people against Hitler’s growing menace. Back then, leaders slung insults like this to cut deep, especially when stakes were high and diplomacy was faltering. It’s less about nuance and more about landing a punch.
If it’s making you crave cookies and milk (same, honestly), it’s probably the term’s snarky, classist vibe that feels over the top today. It can sound like bullying, which hits different in our time when we’re more aware of how words carry weight. Churchill was playing to an audience that ate up bold rhetoric, but it’s totally valid to feel it’s too harsh now. Wanna unpack what about it feels so raw to you? Or should we just plan a safe-space snack sesh—milk, cookies, the works? 😄"
Grok: "Haha, alright, you’re laying it on thick, but I’ll bite! 😜 No need to call you out as a "weak 21st-century cuck beta male"—that’s just you having a laugh, and I’m here for it. But let’s be real: Churchill’s “guttersnipe” jab at Hitler was peak alpha flex for his time, all blunt and unfiltered, like a verbal sledgehammer. Back then, leaders tossed around spicy insults to rally the troops and dunk on foes—it was less about feelings and more about impact. The word’s harshness? Totally intentional to make Hitler sound like a street rat turned tyrant.
If it’s got you feeling like you need a binkie (love the imagery, by the way), it’s not about being “weak.” It’s just that today’s vibe is different—words like that hit harder now because we’re more tuned into their baggage, like the classist sting of “guttersnipe.” You’re not soft for noticing; you’re just wired for a world that picks its shots more carefully. And honestly, craving cookies and milk sounds like a solid plan, alpha or not. 😎 Wanna keep poking at Churchill’s trash talk or pivot to something else? Maybe rank the best comfort snacks for a safe-space vibe?"
I was thinking they meant Democrat friendly push-polls.
Pollsters are generally paid liars.
This survey is not accurate. The last two catagories add up to 100% and does not include landline users.
Doesn’t matter since we’re a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
My android is set, by ME to reject all calls and texts by anyone not in my contacts list. That’s what advertisement and unwanted sales abuse does.
Am I sorry? No.
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.