No holds barred in this one. I dig it.

It’s amazing to see the disagreement on polling, not just on the models, but on the methods too. Mobile phones, questions asked, etc. People described as “polling insiders” are saying there’s been internal argument inside the firms about a whole host of things.

This is a shitstorm for a lot of people.

On the link: I saw the NYSlime tag there in the URL, and Nate Silver the author? My “liberal dem mouthpiece” filter went up. When Romney had a lead in gallup not too long ago (when Gallup had a +7% lead for Romney, and Rasmussen had a +2% on the same day, Gallup the firm that had Obama up 4% higher than he performed in 08, meaning Gallup MUST be a republican firm), he rightly called out that Gallup got it wrong in 08. He did not however mention that the NYTimes was wrong by that same 4% margin.

I’m also willing to state that firms like Suffolk university, there’s a handful of others. But to say we must now humor them all, especially the most flawed ones like the ones labelled in my post? Meh.

I still gave it a read over, I’m going to have to end with “Agree to disagree”, I don’t feel rebutted in the slightest. I’m aware that there are other press writers saying the same things, but as I’ve made clear in other posts, I personally think these yokels mostly belong to the same club, and have a similar isolated-from-reality prism. They’re also known to read and believe each other’s content. I believe it was October 2001 post 9/11 when the special operations elements were being deployed to AFG that writers had begun using the word “quagmire.” We hadn’t even fired a shot, and the professional critics (who are often mysteriously critical of anything conservative, and lenient to most things liberal, shocking i tell you) had begun to peddle doubt.
After one did it, suddenly many of them had columns using that word, lifting phrases, and joining/subscribing to the meme. I’m sure many of them had a real military pedigree to fall back on in their criticism… right? No, they sure didn’t, but they had an ideological axe to grind. When the group think heard something it liked, they wrapped the “Facts” around their turd present. Suddenly lots of writers were saying it, it did not make it true.
We see this play out time and time again. Even if they “come to it by themselves”, they’re often playing with similar decks in terms of ideology, education, and world views. (Some call this the “coast elitist nose in the air” brand). Again, not impressed.

More on the article’s content, not a general shot at the media like I made above:
“What follows is a preliminary analysis of polls released to the public in the final 21 days of the campaign.”
^ Not even the last 40 days? Where my article plainly states the cartwheels firms do in that last 40 days. :/

He also claimed that Rasmussen’s party ID system is pre-ordained and dubious. That’s bullshit, they poll for that too monthly, and unlike other firms theirs are closer to reality (as mentioned in the article) – many of the other firms just took the sample of 2008 and claimed that the turnout models were going to be similar in 2012 when it had no grounding in reality. The other firms failing to do this properly should not be a mark on Rasmussen.

There’s also Article after article written by others stating the inaccuracies of quinnipiac and NYT’s polling in particular, I can also produce articles citing Rasmussen’s accuracy, a lazy googling comes up with fordam university’s study http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/
I’d read a few others showing similar results, I don’t feel the need to find them. Though I do admit by the principle I outlined above Re: media slants, this would be kind of a wash, ja? It’s journalists being journalists, it often gets into the land of “opinion vs opinion”, a ground I hate.

So again thank you for sending in the comment, but I’m not inclined to agree with the things I just wrote about and called false. I understand the criticism and the case, but again I don’t feel they’ve really weakened the fundamentals of the case I’ve made. That’s a toughie, if the most important parts of the foundation* of the argument is standing in the mind of the holder, even if there’s char marks on parts of it, then what can ya say.

..its probably naive to think that every pollster out there is fair and the only thing that separates them is their methodology..and by extension if its possible that polls can be biased then it would be fair to assume each poll has that capacity. Therefore, it is naive to think there is a single poll out there who is lone-ranging it for the good of the people and deserves the unmitigated trust of the citizenry.. such devotion would be unwise; especially when that poll is a national one of great influence, which produces 100s of polls throughout the year and has the capability to be a trendsetter if it so chose. Considering that kind of potential power, if used or not, the prudent move would therefore be to take the average of all polls, and then vary the amount of trust placed in polls in general, rather than pick one out and proclaim it to be something that it may not be–or worse, may be at times, and than in other times not

This was your best post yet…Great info and personal insight. You were simply spot on.

I honestly was nervous about this first debate…I thought that mittens was going to show up, get on the field and then begin to choke; but he didn’t. He dominated the debate and looked right in Obama’s eyes as he spoke to him. You could tell that Obama was forcing the cool but you could also tell that he was intimidated. I cant wait for the VP debate, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden called in sick that day.

In terms of bears and mountain lions: Consider a pistol specifically for those critters. Most service pistols (9mm, .40S&W, .45acp) are really inadequate for bears. If you’re in “big brown bear/grizzly/polar” territory, forget those calibers.
While it’s possible to hunt a small blackbear with something like a .44special, but keep in mind you’re hunting a bear in a situation like that. You’re not in an “oh my god something the size of a 4 wheeler is running at me and I need to put a hit through a deep skull right now to prevent becoming food” scenario. In most “Bear attack” scenarios, the bear gets the drop on you* first.

If you’re in blackbear country:
-Consider a .44magnum or a 10mm handgun with heavy hard-cast rounds.
-Some consider the .500 magnum and .460XVR rounds the “minimum” for very big bears, and that they’re compromises.
-Many recommend the “bear spray”, it works, and it may be easier to use than a handcannon under stress.”
-If you want a good “bear solution”, mull over a .45-70 “Guide-gun”, or a shotgun using hardcast slugs. They work.
-The words you should be hearing in discussions about bear guns are things like “hard cast, meplat” etc. Capacity isn’t really the most important thing. In bear attacks, you’re really not going to have much time. a 9mm is most likely just going to be an irritant. If the bear is dissuaded from the attack, rangers and police will likely have to track down a wounded and angry bear, who may hurt others on its escape. (Use the spray over a 9.)

Doctors and hiccups:
-I have no real experience in such matters :3 Though my opinion is that the costs of defensive medicine have really jacked up our healthcare prices, and wasted a lot of time.

On the gun unloaded:
-Consider keeping your gun in “condition 3″ instead, in a good safe.Condition 3 is loaded mag inserted, empty chamber. Gun is not actioned. An accidental trigger pull yields a “click”. If it’s needed, action it.