[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The more individualistic the candidate's supporters, the less accurate the polling. Polls concerning standard elections are going to be pretty accurate because both parties' supporters aren't amazingly individualistic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any data to support this assertion? If this trend existed, it doesn't seem like it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate by comparing past election results of "individualistic" candidates to their poll numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think iron or someone posted a link to a study that said pollsters have found no significant difference between those they are unable to contact compared to those that they are able to. And even if there were, once they understand the nature of those they are unable to contact, they can adjust the data.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, no, AlexM and AWoodside are right, polling is a billion dollar industry that just produces completely random, biased, unreliable and untrustworthy data. In fact, professional pollsters hadn't even heard of people without landlines nor considered how to account for people who hang up on them until various Ron Paul supporters on 2p2 pointed out it might throw a wrench in their data. So keep spreading the word about all these problems in polling, Ron Paul supporters, we'll get through to those stubborn, Philistine pollsters someday. You'd think guys who get paid hundreds of thousands (or in some firm's cases, millions) of dollars and practice this professionally would consider this stuff, but apparently we'll need to light the way for them.
Anyway, most of the standard "polling isn't capturing Paul's true level of support" arguments are addressed in the links I posted in this thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10881683