HOWEVER, I didn't support Romney and rejected the 'unskewed' cr*p ~ and as I recall you were over there telling us how 'unskewing' was great stuff ~ actually, it was nonsense. The basic assumption there was that every poll was highly stratified and tightly controlled. Which doesn't really matter unless you want to gauge public opinion on more than one item at a time ~ and you want to minimize the expensive calling operation.
The only way to overcome the problem with organized respondent groups (a minority of the population, or a subset if you want to call them that) is to increase sample sizes to enormous levels (hundreds of thousands of calls) ~ AND THEN PAY FOR IT!
So you're basing you argument on Pew's research - which specifically rejected your entire conclusion. Do you know utterly ridiculous you sound? It seems like you hadn't even read the entirety of the article which you are providing as proof of your discredited theory.
Further, you are STILL avoiding any discussion of the 2012 election which is the most recent example of how accurate polling has become. That, again, blows your theory up. The polling in 2012, especially at the state level, was so accurate that aggregator's of that information were able to predict all 50 states correctly. Conservatives like Morris, Barone, etc, that refused to believe the polling later admitted they were wrong and that the pollsters got it right.
I recall you were over there telling us how 'unskewing' was great stuff
Man, I made fun of that "unskewed polls" crap from minute one. I have no idea where you get the idea I thought it was "great stuff". It was incredibly idiotic, yet I took a lot of heat here for pointing out how ridiculous "unskewed polls" was. Lot of folks wanted to believe there was a big polling conspiracy and that "they" were oversampling Democrats. Turns out the pollsters had it pretty much exactly right. The numbers then become incredibly predictive in the hands of a poll aggregator like Nate Silver.
The only way to overcome the problem with organized respondent groups (a minority of the population, or a subset if you want to call them that) is to increase sample sizes to enormous levels (hundreds of thousands of calls) ~ AND THEN PAY FOR IT!
You keep posting about this theory of yours that has already been proven entirely wrong. Why? We just had an election in 2012. The polls were incredibly accurate - particularly at the state level. Why are you spewing out gibberish to defend a theory that is already completely debunked? You are simply wrong about polling. You said the following:
As I've been explaining since last summer, the use of polling to determine public opinion has collapsed to utter nonsense.
Wrong. You're just flat out wrong. Everything you are posting now is just gobbledygook to try to hide how wrong your claim is. What you said was ridiculous and we just went through an election cycle that proves how silly it was.