CNN was scrambling today to "explain" the CBS/New York Times poll showing Mitt Romney AHEAD with WOMEN. Or was it the NBC/Washington Post poll? Or the CBS/Washington Post poll? Or the Wall Street Journal/whatever poll? Who care? There is NOTHING that shows yhou how INCOMPETENTALL---and I do mean ALL--'modern" "journalists" are than their absurd (if inconsistent and hypocritical) reliance on POLLS as "news". But you don't have to believe me. CNN PROVED that The Maverick Conservative is right about this today, in its "reporting" on this pol showing Mitt Romney AHEAD with women. This blog has consistently told yo the correct truth, for almost a decade (and I have underrstood it all of my life, partly because I actually UNDRSTAND statistics and polls): Polls are meaningless, evil things, with NO "news" value (especailly well ahead of an election; polls are merely a CRUTCH for INCOMPETENT, LAZY "journalists.
Doubt me? Never do that. But if yu did, all you had to do was watch CNN today and let CNN PROVE it to you. What did CNN do with this "inconvenient" (because it did not fit the CNN storyline/agenda) poll? What CNN did was ATTACK the poll. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you hear him do the same thing to polls he DOES NOT LIKE (although Rush Limbaugh is honest enough to quetion the "value" of polls, when he is not being PARTISAN). Limbaugh looks at the "internals" of the a poll he does not like, and can ALWAYS find indicatins that the poll ismeaningless/biased. That is what CNN did with this poll that CNN did not like: CNN picked apart the poll's "methodology". But the people of CNN are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. What they do NOT tell you is that this DISCREDITS polls. If CNN can pick apart a poll it does not like, and Rush Limbaugh can pick apart a poll he ddoes not like, why does thjat not DISCREDIT AlL POLLS. Yep. That is what I just told lyou. This poll showing Romney 'ahead" with women is MEANINGLESS, except to PROVE that polls are evil, meaningless things. This is a poll that CNN accepts as GOSPEL when it fits the CNN agenda, but which CNN ATTACKS when it does not. The same is true of AlL polls, and ALL PEOPLE (especailly all "journalists"). Be honest. Do you see CNN examining the INTERNALS of polls which fit the CNN agenda? Nt a chance. Yet, that would be HONEST "reporting:: to QuESTION EVERY SINGLE POLL, and point out the problems with all polls, along with the specific problems with any specific poll.
Further, do yu see CNN HIGHLIGHTING an "opposing" poll if CNN likes teh poll that fits its agenda? Of course not. For example, CNN routinely IGNORES Galup polls, when CNNN does not like the results. But not today. The Gallup poll "found" (lol) that Obama has a 9 percent lead among women. But CNN is a totally DISHOENST network. Did CNN look at the INTERNALS of the Galup poll to try to find out WHY the polls differed so much? Again, not a chance. Did CNN use this obvius PROOF of the unreliability of olls lto make that pont (taht polls are inherently unreliable)? Not a chance. CNN jsut ACCCEPTGED the Gallup Poll. It acutally is worse tlhan that. Registered voters? Likely voters? Just all peole? This is the kind of FACT that causes polls to differ wildly. CNN NEVER RPORTS this kind of FACT. Whether a poll questions everyone (including illegal immigrants), or just likely voters, usually has a MATERIAL effectgt on the oll. But you modern "journalist" DOES NOT CARE. Taht is because your "modern journalist" cares NOTHIGN for facts. It is all abut "storyline'. Again, see Michael Crichton's absolutely great "novel",. "Airframe". Michael Crichton did a better dismembering of the "modern journalist" (my only disagreemetn being that Crichton sort of gave PRINT "journalists" a pass, but this was more than a decade ago) than this blog could ever do--in fictin, yet.
Nope. Today's "journalist" is a LIAR every time he or she reports on AnY poll (not just a liar on polls, of course). Look at how CNN "reported" that Gallypo poll. Not only was there NO examination of the "internals" of the opll, to se what might cause the discrepancy, but CNN failed to tal about the MARGIN OF ERROR in the Gallup poll. All polls, of course, really hae basically a 100% 'margin of error" (as you CAN flip a coin and get 1000 heads in a row, even if it is unlikely, by chance alone). But CNN did NOT talk about even the EXPECTEED amargin of error. No, that was NOT rue of the CBS/New York Times poll (or whatever). There, CNN (the unfair and unbalanced network, and everyone else) talked abut Romney's 3% margin among women as being "within the margin of error". So it ws, but that just means the actual margin COULD have been 7% (lol). Look at that Gallup poll. Does that poll really show a "margin" of 9% for Obama among women. NO. That is a LIE. Ype. The Liar Network LIED AGAIN. Even if you do not know that polls are MEANINGLESS, the "margin of error" appies just as much to a 9% margin as it does to a 3% margin. In othe rwords, even if yu accpet the Gallup poll at face value, the poll does NOT represent a "finding" taht Obama has a 9% "lead" among women. It represents an EXTIMATE (depending on the validity of the sample and methodolgy) that the actual margin is somewhere between 5% (or so) and 13% (or so). Thus, the Gallup poll and that CBS (or whatever) poll MAY not have even been that far apart. It is POSSIBLE that the CBS poll really, because of chance alone, did not accurately measure the real situation (if we had a "real" eleciton, instead of a mere SAMPLE of a thousand people or so). So Obama MAY "rfeally" have a "lead" of 1 % over Romney. Similarly, Galluyp may not--y chance alone--have "measured" the right percentage. Maybe Galllup "really" shuld have come up with 5% (within the margin of error of the 9%). Now the way the sample is chosen culd easlity "explain" a differnce of 4%, along withhh the FACT that these polls could not possibly have been taken at EXACTLY the same time. It is much harder to "explain" a difference of 12%, without DISCREDITING ALL PLLS. Yet, a difference of 12% is COMMN (even if you will not hear it from the hypocrites at CNN, UNLESS CNN is attackng one of the polls upon which it cusomarily relies because the poll conflicts with the CNN agenda.
No. Despite appearances, I did not watch CNN all sday. But I did watch enough to see CNN come up iwth a "bottom line" "talking point". Yep. I find this ironic (really hillarious). CNN came up with an "argument" that GNORES PRE-ELECTION OPININO POLLS: the very kind of thiing that causes me to PREDICAT taht Obama is going to lose this electin (because of the CONSISTENT restults, around the worls and in the U.S.., involving the FAILURAE of IN CUMBENTS in this economy). What CNN did finally, was say that "Democrats" (something of an overstatement) USUALLY win the "women vote". In Presidential elections, that has been generally true, although it DPENDS upon another pretty MEANINGLESS POLL ; the EXIT POLL. You remember exit polls? Those wre the polls that fund that John Krrry would be Presdient in 2004. Despite that, and desoite saing taht exit olls are known to be often inaccurate, DISHOENST JOURNALISTS (LAZY "journalists") still RELY upon "exit polls' to tell us exactly how individual groups of people vote.
Still, You know that this blog tends to distrust the THINKIG of women on politics. Thus, even though I KNOW that exit olls are unreliable, I am willing ot beieve that women--as a sex--are DUMB enough to voter consistently for leftist Democrats. Notice that I rely upon ACTUAL VOTES (in federal state, local and foreign elections) fo rmy PREDICATIN taht Obama will LOSE this election. In contgrast, CNN is relying upon ANOTHER POLL to DISCREDIT the poll CNN does nto like. Still, if I did not know that this was totally AGENDA driven, I would say this is "progress". It IS a MORE reliable indicator of how women may vote to examine how they have voted in the recdent past, than to rely upon some evil, meaningless OPINION POLL ESTIMATE taken at a certain moment in time (NOT, you dhould understand, the ELECTIN moment of time).
Notice how both CNN and this blog COULD be wrong. CNN is essentialy PREDICTING that Obama will "win" the "women vote". That may be the way to bety, based on recent history. Hoever, it could CHANGE. Women, as a sex, my return to sanity. Miracles happne. And, as this blog told you, MY PREDICTION (that Obama will LOSE in November) is based on the ECONOMY not making obvius and substantial improment between now and then. That seems like a very safe bet, bit it is barely POSSIBLE that there will be a momentary (likely temporary) JUMP up in the economy, just in time to save Obama. And, of course, it is always possilbe that Romney will IMPLODE, because of major mistakees (NOT, by the way, because of thse absrud media SMEARS or the media BIGTORY abuot Romney being a Mormon). Many more things than that, by the way, can totally CHANGE current POLLS--as has already happened this electin season multiple times; someting which has not kept the INCOMPETENT, LAZY media people from continuing to use polls aS almost their ENTIRE election "coverage".
Q.E.D. CNN has PROVEN The Maverick Conservative to be right, and has PROVEN CNN to be full of lazy, total incompetents. In the process, CNN has PROVEN that polls truly are meaningless.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).