Polls, R.I.P. (Texans Believe Obama is a Muslim; Or Do They?)

Polls, R.I.P. (Texans Believe Obama is a Muslim; Or Do They?)
Recent polls have had Obama up 2% to 15%. As this blog has told you before, this tells you that all polls are meaningless--the polls showing the election is even (2% is well within the expected margin of error when you project a sample of 1000 to 125 million people; the possible margin of error always being approximately 100%--basically a statistical possibility of flipping 1000 heads in a row), and the polls showing Obama ahead 15%. But can't we at least say Obama has been leading? Nope. When polls are meaningless, they are meaningless, and adding to the number of meaningless polls adds nothing (as "averaging" the polls not only means nothing, but is statistically erroneous; I majored in physics and minored in mathematics at New Mexico Statre University, and I am willing to debate this point with any "scientist" who lives, including any from more prestigious schools. This is a rigged challenge, since no scientist or mathematician is going to defend averaging diverse polls as a statistically valid procedure).

What does this mean? It means that today's "journalists" are the most incompetent "journalists" who ever lived. In fact, it means "journalism" is dead in this country. You doubt me? Don't. Karl Rove counted. So far this year there have been 728 national polls. In all of 2004, there were 239 national polls (see today's Wall Street Journal. Yet, the 2004 polls were mostly wrong. Isn't that definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result? Here the mainstream media is increasing its reliance on polls that have already proven to be meaningless. Then they base their other disgraceful "coverage" on those very same meaningless polls. For example: "Is this election already over, and has McCain already lost?". Now agenda explains a lot of this, but lazy, incompetent, lying (about significance and preciseness of polls--not just distoring poll results) "journliasts" are also a good part of the explanation.

Let us go to that example referenced in the headline: "23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim." Is that true. I live in Texas. I can assure you it is not true. If you want to know why I can say it is not true, in the face of a poll, then you have not been paying attention.

Whether it accidentally happened to be true or not, saying "23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim" is a lie, just as the way election polls (and exit polls, including on "issues") are reported is a lie. What is correct? The only correct statement (and this is not facetious, but a necessary way of honestly reporting polls) is that 23% of a sample of 1000 (or 500 or whatever) Texans were willing to tell a pollster that Obama is a Muslim. So what. Means absolutely nothing. People are not compelled--either morally or legally--to tell the truth to a pollster.

If you have read previous blog entries on polls, you know that this is not theory. My recommendation has been to lie to pollsters (where I am ahead of Limbaugh, because of his misguided--if correect--view that polls are being used by the mainstream media to advance its agenda). In short, I have explained to you again and again that polls are evil things, and that the only real "solution" is to get rid of then. That means sabotage, although you wonder how obvious it has to be that polls are meaningless before the idiots in the mainstream media will get the message).

So I would cheerfully tell a pollster in Texas that Obama is a Muslim. I would not say it on this blog, because I do not believe it to be true, and I actually strive for credibility in what I say on this blog. But (more people should think this way) I don't care what a pollster thinks of me. I will cheerfully lie.

Say 23% of Texans do not have my attitude toward polls (as they would if Limbaugh would only jump on my bandwagon, as he has on other things). Does that mean that 23% of Texans believe that Obama is a Muslim? Nope (even apart from that margin of error). Again, all it means is that 23^ of a small sample is willing to say that. "But why would they say something like that, if they did not really believe it.". Be frank. "You" work for the mainstream media, don't you. That is the only way to explain a question that stupid.

If you are a Texan (mostly smart people), you know Obama is sensitive about his Muslim "heritage" and "background". Obama has even put his middle name (shhhh!!! It's Husseinn) "off limits". If you are a Texan, and really despise Obama (politically), what is your reaction when you are asked whether you think Obama is a Muslim by a stupid pollster? Remember, a majority of Texans are surely going to vote against Obama (not really for McCain). If a stupid pollster asks Texans a question about Obama, he is going to be askig a lot of people who want to stick it to Obama. Most of them probably think Obama has more Muslim connections than he admits, even though he is not a Muslim (not an unreasonable opinion, whether true or not) Given all of that, I am amazed that the percentage of Texans who said Obama is a Muslim was only 23%. I AM DISAPPOINTED IN YOU TEXANS OUT THERE. This poll answer has nothing to do, for the most part, with whether these people really believe Obama is a Muslim.

You want a leftist example? Remember the poll that said 35% of Democrats thought that President Bush was complicit in 9/11--knew that it was going to happen in advance. That is essentially that kook "conspiracy theory" endorsed by kook Rosie O'Donnell. That translated to about 23% of all Americans believing the President was evil enough to arrange an attack on this own country. Did that many people really believe that? I don't think so (could be wrong, as leftist Democrats are gettig kookier all of the time). I think that most anti-Bush Democrats were fully aware of the anti-Bush answer to that question. What do they care if they lie to a pollster about what they believe? Why not give the answer they think will advance their agenda? I am confident most Texans fee the same way about Obma. Again, explain to me why it is moreally wrong to lie to a pollster? You can't, can you?

Q.E.D. Polls are meaningless things. The sample may be unrepresentative. The people may lie. The pollsters may be incomepent. The pollsters may have an agenda. The questions may be asked in a non-neutral way. And, after all of that, chance alone makes all polls uncertain over a range that now represents a landslide in American politics. Unlike Limbaugh (who sees it, like the mainstream media, as a matter of power politics--using polls to advance your agenda), I don't believe a poll which shows Obama ahead by 2% any more than I believe one showing Obama ahead 10% (15% is absurd). I don't believe that any of the polls, or all together, even show that Obama is ahead at all. McCain may be ahead. A consequence of believing the polls are meaningless, is that you don't pay any attention to them. Now Obama may well be ahead, and it is somewhat more likely he has been ahead than McCain, but it is by no means a sure thing. Again, remember the 2004 election, where the exit polls (election day itself) had Kerry winning by at least 3% or more. Bush won by 3%. That is a 6% ERROR. The idea that these polls mean anything is just indefensible.