THE POLLSTERS AND THEIR WARES.
What are they really selling; negativity?
The pollsters are out again, as if they never go away, bedazzling the public with poll numbers that seem to come from a bag with little cards on which are scribbled the numbers that they want to predict.
Today it is 47% for or against, and tomorrow will be 13% in favor of the challenger, meaning Romney for the Republican Party under the "approval rating" category, and even though they will say "within the poll's margin of sampling error." of so and so points, which has no bearing whatsoever on the final outcome.
Are they saying that people have time to work out the math themselves and rounding the numbers off to get the answers they need? Or are they (people) so naive to think that anyone can insist on sitting in an air-conditioned office and cram some figures in his head, without calling any other person on the phone; and then arrive at some result?
Hmm, can that be what may be happening?
For all the poll numbers seem to be "dragnet numbers", when one looks at them closely, as the same of them are shown each and every time, giving an interval of a week, a month or even a whole year, for them to come back again.
Then there is no justification at all in those numbers, if that is the case; and what makes it more incredible is that the pollsters will continue to use big names, like Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw and Company Research as the "liable source" to bamboozle the poor innocent public.
There are those, who pay the researchers good money to conduct the polls, such as media companies and advertisement groups wanting the numbers to boost their ratings or to sell their wares, respectively.
They buy from the poll organizations, because it is easier for them than making calls to 1000 people or going out and randomly interviewing individual members of the public. Those companies then attach their names to the final product that they have paid so much for and then present it to "the gullible masses."
Otherwise, how can the demographics they compute always be the same; or they are adjusted here and there from time to time to make them look as convincing as possible. However, just take a closer look at them and there is no visible change.
The numbers are meant to attract voters in an election year such as this, and they may be able to do so with respect to only a fraction of the people; or those who cannot read between the lines that they are being dragged into campaign politics without them knowing it.
For example, comparing leading candidates in some fashion and saying, "if the election were today," does not make any sense at all, because the election is not "today". It is about 7 months away; and so how does one compare the events in the present with the ones to come in the future?
Therefore, pairing Obama and Romney, and outmatching one against the other is a tricky stuff, as 910 or 1000 people are not, and cannot be the cross section of the American population, and so, there must be so much doubt about an accurate end result.
Besides, one of them has started his campaign almost a year ago, while the other is focused on manning the country's business. The comparison is not even or close to being practical.
It will be like comparing the proverbial "apples and oranges" without the two men meeting head to head in a debate and drawing some kind of inference from that. Members of the public will be there to back up any opinions that they can make their own minds about.
That brings to mind another proverbial imagery of what the pollsters are about, "that feeding them fish for a day is not enough, but teaching them how to fish will feed them forever." Their's is just to "feed the fish for a day," and that is where their responsibility ends.
Well, do the pollsters ever think of their profession that way? Many may disagree, but that is how it looks like.
Political parties, TV companies, advertising organizations, etc., will pay them large sums of money for what they produce, but what they are really doing is just feeding the minds of others with so much negativity and confusion for pay.