Let's Take a Poll (Rules of Engagement) Update on polling for 2016 presidential elections

(Rules of Engagement). Are we all stupid or what?

Updated for polling being done for 2016 presidential election candidates.

It has become an (abstract) art form for pollsters to take ''meaningful'' polls.

With that being said it is questionable just how "meaningful" they really are when they are used inappropriately by social media and political parties to strengthen, or weaken, any politician's position when running for office (campaigning).

What do poll results really mean?:

If you want a right wing slanted poll, you simply ask the right wing faction.

If you want a liberal view, you simply poll the liberal faction.

If you want the Christian view, you simply ask the Christians.

So, just who do they think they are kidding with all those poll numbers?

..... and the world goes on; with or without you - depending on what percentage of the poll one finds themselves owning.

Every news station, every political party, faction or sect, every religious group, or any other damned group out there, who wants to push their agenda - cite a poll's results as proof of their claims - no matter how dumb it may be.

Here's the problem with that old outdated, dried up, stale and stupid basis for proving a point:

As with everything else in this world it has now become corrupted by those who will deceive you any way they can. [notice i did not say 'attempt' to deceive 'cause it actually still works].

if it can be said there are in fact any rules at all

Let's take a look at the 'rules' for taking a poll.

Well, bless my little heart, and even smaller little brain.

There ARE no rules !!

Polls (by definition): the casting, or recording, of votes of a body of persons .

There is NO required minimum number of "persons" that will be questioned.

The only "must have" factor is an odd number of "persons" to be polled. Otherwise, there might be a half and half voting result.

'Even' numbered poll groups would never do. [note here that i did not say there might be a 50/50 voting result, as this would imply that there were 100 people polled].

So, do 3 'persons' qualify as a legitimate poll?

I would venture a guess this would be the minimum number required in order to obtain a proper 'percentage' to cite as the results. 2 out of 3 would constitute a 'two thirds' of the people polled result.

Reporting those results from the 3 person poll sounds impressive to me.

Now, the next factor in "polling" would be how to pick people at "random" to poll.

Let's say we wanted to know how many people would vote for Sarah Palin in the 2012 presidential elections?. We will pick three panels to poll. (These are strictly hypothetical of course)

• If you poll the democratic party members - probably very few would say yes. Probably 5% or less.
• If you poll the republican party members - probably 50% would say yes.
• If you poll the tea party members - probably 97% would say yes.

Now these "poll" results will be aired as "factual" depending on who is conducting the poll and how many people are actually "polled".

We, as reasonably intelligent, realistic and logical people, all know that polls are just one 'tool' to either persuade, or dissuade, others from either backing, or rebuffing, the subject of the poll. (tool #1)

So, which of the three panels do you believe would have the most accurate results? This is just a rhetorical question, as we all know the correct answer.

Or do we?

Every person out there in that vast "T.V. land" audience (our living rooms) will believe which ever group results that they are most closely affiliated with.

And my point here?

If anyone believes any poll results - irregardless which group asks the question - they are an idiot of the highest order; or at least more stupid than i am, and far less intelligent than an "idiot savant".

Airing poll results on news shows will definitely have some residual effects on those given the results of the poll - no matter which panel is 'polled'. The persons who might be most affected by those (or any) poll results are those who can not make up their own minds about anything in their lives.

Namely the "independents". [ oops, did i say that out loud? ] (tool #2)

They hide behind a mask made only for them. They will be swayed by which ever side of the bed they got out of on any particular morning. Instead of taking a stand (politically speaking of course) for a government, for and by the people; or a government, for and by corporate America, they straddle the fence and vote for which ever candidate can tell the biggest whopper, spread the most 'dirt' about their opponents, and what they stand to gain from which ever candidate can promise the most favors.

Strictly cowards and opportunists - much like that guy who took Larry King's place after his long overdue retirement from CNN. This virtual unknown who learned rapidly, who to, and not to, suck up to. [which was relatively easier for him, being British, and all]

He certainly is closely equivalent to his predecessor in obnoxiousness or obnubilation (if there is such a word - and if not, well there should be).

Oh, look it up, of course there is such a word.

Oh, what the hell lets just take a 'poll' on that.

Not that it really matters, this world will go on with or without either of them - or any of us, for that matter. Has anyone reading this crap ever been polled? No one has ever asked me for my opinion - but i give it anyway. LOL

by: d.william

Obnubilation defined: becloud, obscure