Replies

Did you read the posts I made? To arrive at that conclusion you'd have to imagine that I accepted any of them. They were all garbage, but, and many pollsters fessed up in the aftermath, they FILTERED the responses they were getting so they didn't have too many highschool kids cluttering up the results. Then they looked at trendlines, and as I have been telling people since 1997 on FR, if polling does anything, it gives you some trendlines that you might want to pay attention to ~ and that's simply because from poll to poll the same method has the same mistakes in it so you should be getting comparable results ~ and can find UP and DOWN.

The winning pollsters looked at their trendlines state by state, and recalling that Obama won in 2008 while McCain drew fewer votes than George Bush before him, simply looked for deviations from the pattern. A couple of them did notice that Obama's expected vote totals were going to decline ~ but by how much they didn't know ~ after all, polling can't tell them that, but they did hit that on the head.

The unskewing guys had so much mind numbing nonsense in their heads they had no idea what it meant that Romney was pulling well among homosexuals ~ only the guys who 'trimmed' responses understood that problem ~ except Gallup which was the very company that had, in effect, solicited homosexual overload on all their polls ~ those ol'boys were answering all pollster calls! With a 9% response rate in the aggregate, each deviation from the norm is worth 11X as much as a normal poll response (that's a punn BTW, but still true). Only pollsters who knew how to back the gay overload from the results could get even a half way decent view of which way the election was going.