<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Today&#8217;s Polls</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/10/09/todays-polls-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/10/09/todays-polls-3/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 00:49:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pseudoplotinus</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/10/09/todays-polls-3/comment-page-1/#comment-28483</link>
		<dc:creator>Pseudoplotinus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:50:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=9017#comment-28483</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems like nothing is what it seems anymore. Here is John Podhoretz&#039;s contribution to Pollstergate. He adds a wrinkle to the problem with our state of polling this year which I am now beginning to believe may explain the data we&#039;ve been seeing.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_day_polling_died_avC02WOQrbvvohrTLZwgAI

The problem may not be oversampling of democrats or republicans, but unrepresentative sampling in general. Turns out 9 out of 10 people who are now called by pollsters hang up on said pollster, which, as Iowahawk is quoted as saying in this article, suggests that: 

“political poll results accurately reflect the opinions of the weirdo 9 percent who agree to participate in political polls.”

So my revised interpretation of our poll problem is that we aren&#039;t measuring votes so much as partisan enthusiasm. The guy who is willing to answer the pollsters questions is probably the guy who is feeling pretty good about his candidates chances. So Obama&#039;s lead jumped after the DNC, and now Romney is surging after the Debate. 

So statistically speaking, we&#039;re flying blind.

Pretty cool eh?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like nothing is what it seems anymore. Here is John Podhoretz&#8217;s contribution to Pollstergate. He adds a wrinkle to the problem with our state of polling this year which I am now beginning to believe may explain the data we&#8217;ve been seeing.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_day_polling_died_avC02WOQrbvvohrTLZwgAI" rel="nofollow">http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_day_polling_died_avC02WOQrbvvohrTLZwgAI</a></p>
<p>The problem may not be oversampling of democrats or republicans, but unrepresentative sampling in general. Turns out 9 out of 10 people who are now called by pollsters hang up on said pollster, which, as Iowahawk is quoted as saying in this article, suggests that: </p>
<p>“political poll results accurately reflect the opinions of the weirdo 9 percent who agree to participate in political polls.”</p>
<p>So my revised interpretation of our poll problem is that we aren&#8217;t measuring votes so much as partisan enthusiasm. The guy who is willing to answer the pollsters questions is probably the guy who is feeling pretty good about his candidates chances. So Obama&#8217;s lead jumped after the DNC, and now Romney is surging after the Debate. </p>
<p>So statistically speaking, we&#8217;re flying blind.</p>
<p>Pretty cool eh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
