GET ANGRY: True Reason For Low "Scientific" Polls

[ronpaulfan]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html

I just made a YouTube video with that information called "True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIiQcCyuxU)"
Please rate and Digg it (http://digg.com/videos/educational/ANGRY_TIME_True_Reason_for_Ron_Paul_s_Low_Scientif ic_Polls)!


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters :mad:

How do we combat this?

[ronpaulfan]

I was thinking something like this when responding to low polls:

"The people being polled are the hardcore Bush supporters from 2004. The fact Ron Paul registers at all with them is amazing!"

I don't like the wording though. Any other ideas?

[Sematary]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters :mad:

How do we combat this?

Get everyone you know to get out and vote for Ron Paul. It's the only way.

[quickmike]

we dont have to combat this.


They wont change the rules just for us. Lets just wait till the early primary votes start rolling in and that will give a true representation of whos voting for who.


I wouldnt worry about these worthless phone polls.

[Hook]

we dont have to combat this.


They wont change the rules just for us. Lets just wait till the early primary votes start rolling in and that will give a true representation of whos voting for who.


I wouldnt worry about these worthless phone polls.

I would. We still have a lot of work to do.

[American]

you need to find the methodology for the polls, its somewhere but without it, its all hearsay

[ronpaulfan]

we dont have to combat this.


They wont change the rules just for us. Lets just wait till the early primary votes start rolling in and that will give a true representation of whos voting for who.


We don't have to wait! We can combat all the spin right now. The only defensive talking point we have at the moment is regarding "landlines"



I wouldnt worry about these worthless phone polls.

I strongly disagree! The media is spewing these polls all over the population!

[quickmike]

I would. We still have a lot of work to do.

Hows worrying about the phone polls going to help get work done? It shouldnt change what we do should it? We need to keep promoting as much as we can, no matter what these polls say.

Would you be spreading the word any less if we were higher in the polls? I wouldnt. To me, these polls mean nothing.

Are you going to waste your time trying to get the MSM to be fair about reporting the inacuracies of phone polling(good luck on that one LOL), or are you going to spread the word and prove them wrong? I choose the latter.

[terlinguatx]

...

[SlapItHigh]

I spent this past Saturday at a gun show (we had a Ron Paul booth there). The most common comments I heard were people saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul has to say but he doesn't have a chance so there is no point in voting for him. I hear this all the time, not just at the gun show but I think the show just had a large concentration of like minded people so it seemed in the forefront.

It can't hurt to try to combat this, can it? When people think these polls are more representative of our country than online polls, why not point out the flaws? There is a massive audience to tap into that could support RP but they just don't think it is worth it for someone who is polling so low.

[terlinguatx]

...

[ronpaulfan]

I spent this past Saturday at a gun show (we had a Ron Paul booth there). The most common comments I heard were people saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul has to say but he doesn't have a chance so there is no point in voting for him. I hear this all the time, not just at the gun show but I think the show just had a large concentration of like minded people so it seemed in the forefront.

It can't hurt to try to combat this, can it? When people think these polls are more representative of our country than online polls, why not point out the flaws? There is a massive audience to tap into that could support RP but they just don't think it is worth it for someone who is polling so low.

I think you're exactly right. The media is essentially brainwashing the country into thinking Ron Paul can't win.

[Sematary]

I spent this past Saturday at a gun show (we had a Ron Paul booth there). The most common comments I heard were people saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul has to say but he doesn't have a chance so there is no point in voting for him. I hear this all the time, not just at the gun show but I think the show just had a large concentration of like minded people so it seemed in the forefront.

It can't hurt to try to combat this, can it? When people think these polls are more representative of our country than online polls, why not point out the flaws? There is a massive audience to tap into that could support RP but they just don't think it is worth it for someone who is polling so low.

I have combated this ridiculousness for years because I vote Libertarian. I let people know right up front that if they REALLY want change, then they have to vote change or it will never occur!

[quickmike]

I spent this past Saturday at a gun show (we had a Ron Paul booth there). The most common comments I heard were people saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul has to say but he doesn't have a chance so there is no point in voting for him. I hear this all the time, not just at the gun show but I think the show just had a large concentration of like minded people so it seemed in the forefront.

It can't hurt to try to combat this, can it? When people think these polls are more representative of our country than online polls, why not point out the flaws? There is a massive audience to tap into that could support RP but they just don't think it is worth it for someone who is polling so low.

Ok, I see what you guys are saying now. I thought you meant that we should try and change how the polls are done. LOL

Nevermind.

Yeah, definitely point out to people that the only way you can get what you want is by voting for what you want, otherwise you end up with what you always get.

[Tidewise]

Has anyone seen a good article noting Paul's low rankings in the telephone polls with his absolute dominance of the straw polls?

[mport1]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters :mad:

How do we combat this?

Wow, never even thought about that. That is some HUGE selection bias and it makes the results of these things completely inaccurate.

[ronpaulfan]

This pissed me off so much, I just made a YouTube video about it called True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls - GET MAD! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIiQcCyuxU)

Also, tell me what you think of the video of course :)

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Good video - the only thing i would add is ronpaul2008.com for a few seconds at the end, but I like it otherwise

[LibertyEagle]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html

I just made a YouTube video with that information called "True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls - GET MAD! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIiQcCyuxU)"


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters :mad:

How do we combat this?

I'm not seeing the source for the claim that the sample is the 6.6 percent that voted for Bush in the last election. Did I miss it?

[The Dane]

This information should be checked with each polling company and if true shared wide and far.

Maybe its something for www.usaelectionpolls.com to look into?

[walt]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/36/biography I think he might be the most sympathetic to change.

[ronpaulfan]

Please digg the video before the bury-brigade finds it!

http://digg.com/videos/educational/ANGRY_TIME_True_Reason_for_Ron_Paul_s_Low_Scientif ic_Polls

[plopolp]

I'm not seeing the source for the claim that the sample is the 6.6 percent that voted for Bush in the last election. Did I miss it?
I don't think that they only ask those who voted last time, but it is true that polls normally use re-weighing of the raw results in a poll according to how people SAY that they voted before.

If 80% actually voted for Bush last time, but now only 40% of the people asked SAY that they voted for Bush last time, then the answers from the people who say that they voted for Bush last time is counted twice to increase their weight from 40% to the actual 80%. (It might be slightly more complicated, but that's the basic idea).

The purpose of the adjustment is to make up for slight mistakes in the sampling process. Similar adjustments are made in order to make sure that 50% of the people polled are women. If 52% of people polled are women, then the answers from women are discounted slightly until their aggregated weight corresponds to 50%. Given some fairly reasonable assumptions, this generally makes the sample a bit more representative for the whole population.

However, two factors can make this re-weighting dangerous:

1) If one candidate dominated last nomination without much competition, then this re-weighting skews the result too much. If 100% of the people polled are women then it is mathematically impossible to adjust for how men vote, to give an extreme example.

2) People are known to LIE about whom they voted for before! Especially if they are ashamed of it after the fact (as with Bush now being the most impopular president ever). According to peoples answers today, Bush would probably not have won in 2004!

We should demand the raw data from the polling institutes so that their weighting procedures can be checked!
:mad:

Professor Paul Levinson of Fordham University, who has already critized media reports on Ron Paul, shoul know about these things and might be interested in investigating this (together with a statitician I suppose)! See his youtube-lessons mentioning Ron Paul. An academic criticism of the polls would give headlines in MSM, while whining supporters are easily ignored...

[kylejack]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html

I just made a YouTube video with that information called "True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls - GET MAD! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIiQcCyuxU)"
Please rate and Digg it (http://digg.com/videos/educational/ANGRY_TIME_True_Reason_for_Ron_Paul_s_Low_Scientif ic_Polls)!


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters :mad:

How do we combat this?
Gallup dials random numbers, not just people who voted in 2004.

[The Dane]

Gallup dials random numbers, not just people who voted in 2004.

Give the source, plz.

[kylejack]

Give the source, plz.

The source is me. I used to work at Gallup conducting surveys, and we dialed random numbers. We got a lot of unlisted people, and some dead numbers. One time I got a private CIA number and they were baffled how I was able to call them, heh.

[rpfreedom08]

I think the idea of making dvd's to go along with your slim jims when passing them out is sickning! in a good way! People respond now a days better to movies then to literature. I get slim jims all the damn time and never look at them but I think if we where to put dvd's with them the tendency is to put the movie in the dvd player. Is there anyway to make a vcd that works in a dvd player so that it would be cheaper to make these? Heck I've got quite a few computers I'll just start burning 24/7.

[paulitics]

Polls lie! People need to realize this. They ignore all the new voter, liberatarian, independent, and even democrat voters Paul has attracted. For a more accurate Poll they should do the following (with cellphones as well!) : Call any random house and give a prompt that asks: Press 1 if you are voting REpublican- if pressed give entire list of republicans in random order. Press 2 if you're voting democrat - if pressed give entire list of democrats. Press 3 if you're voting 3rd party. Press 4 if you're not voting.

This is the only way to do a just poll -- a completely random sample. Call 10,000 households in each state with this poll and i guarantee you that Paul will be in the teens.

This answer is correct. Unfortunately they don't do that. However in the latest gallup poll they include some independents. Notice that his numbers jump to 5%.
Im not sure what criteria they use for independents. The fact is any poll that leaves out independents will show about half of his support.

[Bradley in DC]

Our Meetup group did a data request and is approaching this adults. We're identifying the "super voters" who are the ones most likely to vote based on their previous voting history. DC did not even have a primary in 2004 since it was uncontested.

Channel your misguided anger into something productive: pass out slim jims or something.

[kylejack]

This answer is correct. Unfortunately they don't do that. However in the latest gallup poll they include some independents. Notice that his numbers jump to 5%.
Im not sure what criteria they use for independents. The fact is any poll that leaves out independents will show about half of his support.

Republican leaning Independents are including in every Gallup poll of the Republican primary.

[Bradley in DC]

Polls lie! People need to realize this. They ignore all the new voter, liberatarian, independent, and even democrat voters Paul has attracted. For a more accurate Poll they should do the following (with cellphones as well!) : Call any random house and give a prompt that asks: Press 1 if you are voting REpublican- if pressed give entire list of republicans in random order. Press 2 if you're voting democrat - if pressed give entire list of democrats. Press 3 if you're voting 3rd party. Press 4 if you're not voting.

This is the only way to do a just poll -- a completely random sample. Call 10,000 households in each state with this poll and i guarantee you that Paul will be in the teens.

Stop spouting ill-informed jibberish. Polls tell the truth about what they represent: usually say a 95% confidence level within their stated margin of error of what they claim they surveyed. That means if they don't poll Democrats they aren't claiming to show what anyone's suppport among Democrats is. Do they claim what you think they're claiming (true overall support of Dr. Paul)? No. The problem is not with the polls but ignorant people spouting off about their own misunderstandings.

[Bradley in DC]

This pissed me off so much, I just made a YouTube video about it called True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls - GET MAD! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIiQcCyuxU)

Also, tell me what you think of the video of course :)

If you want to help Dr. Paul, you'll take down the video (you asked). Why don't you make a YouTube of you going door to door in your neighborhood surveying 100 people and show us how many people have even heard of the good doctor yet? Of that small percentage, how many support him? Compare that with your baseless fury. ;)

[jm1776]

Print the straw poll results and hand it out along with an issues sheet to everyone you can find.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

[ronpaulfan]

If you want to help Dr. Paul, you'll take down the video (you asked).
I'm not planning to take the video down, but I took out the " - GET MAD!" in the title :)


Why don't you make a YouTube of you going door to door in your neighborhood surveying 100 people and show us how many people have even heard of the good doctor yet? Of that small percentage, how many support him? Compare that with your baseless fury. ;)
Good idea for a video, but, since I've already gone through my neighborhood about Ron Paul, the percentage that has heard of him here will be 100% ;)

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not seeing the source for the claim that the sample is the 6.6 percent that voted for Bush in the last election. Did I miss it?

Don't you think we should make sure this is real, before we go off forwarding it everywhere and raising hell? :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Trying to stir up trouble and get us off-track from our mission of spreading Ron's message. We will look like absolute fools if we push what the TS is claiming, when the source is not founded. It is not in the article, nor has anyone in this thread been able to show it.

Yet, there are a few that are encouraging you to go forward, without the necessary proof, and raise ever lovin' hell. I, for one, question their intentions. :mad:

[davidhperry]

This pissed me off so much, I just made a YouTube video about it called True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls - GET MAD!

No offense to you personally, but why must we "Get Mad" and "Get Angry" in order to advance the campaign forward? To be sure, I see a lot of things that out there that DO make me angry - very angry! Generally speaking, people have a tendency to turn their brains off and do stupid things when they are angry.

Let's take action where and when we need to take action but let's think first, and do it in smart (and courteous) ways.

[davidhperry]

I'm not planning to take the video down, but I took out the " - GET MAD!" in the title.

Thanks - you rock! :)

[Proemio]

I'm not planning to take the video down, but I took out the " - GET MAD!" in the title :)

Here is a source (http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=122&sortorder=issue) supporting your/their contention in principle. It is up to the pollsters and their defenders to prove that this is no longer true, and how that can be veryfied. It's up to them to put up or shut up.

The stakes today are arguably even higher than in the situation described at the source...

[kylejack]

Here is a source (http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=122&sortorder=issue) supporting your/their contention in principle. It is up to the pollsters and their defenders to prove that this is no longer true, and how that can be veryfied. It's up to them to put up or shut up.

The stakes today are arguably even higher than in the situation described at the source...

Thread bogus. Gallup dials random numbers.

[Brian4Liberty]

Complaining about polls (and about people who COMPLAIN about polls) is beating a dead horse, and not very productive.

Claiming that all polls are rigged is wrong.
Claiming that all polls are fair and balanced is wrong.

The truth is somewhere in between. Next topic please...

[foofighter20x]

Gallup dials random numbers, not just people who voted in 2004.

That doesn't mean they don't edit their data to fit their statistical profile of what they deem a "likely primary voter."

[axiomata]

Polls lie! People need to realize this. They ignore all the new voter, liberatarian, independent, and even democrat voters Paul has attracted. For a more accurate Poll they should do the following (with cellphones as well!) : Call any random house and give a prompt that asks: Press 1 if you are voting REpublican- if pressed give entire list of republicans in random order. Press 2 if you're voting democrat - if pressed give entire list of democrats. Press 3 if you're voting 3rd party. Press 4 if you're not voting.

This is the only way to do a just poll -- a completely random sample. Call 10,000 households in each state with this poll and i guarantee you that Paul will be in the teens.

Polls don't lie, people lie. There is nothing wrong with the scientific methodology of polling. Given a random sample with a fair number of respondents polls are accurate to their percent error. It's statistics.

However, when people or the media extrapolate RP's low polling to future primary voters, that is a lie. All most polls tell us is that among past Republican primary voters, Paul is doing poorly.

We need to combat inaccurate extrapolation of existing polls and sponsor polling of samples that will better reflect everyone who will be voting in the GOP primary.

[foofighter20x]

Thread bogus. Gallup dials random numbers.

So... You worked the phones and collected the data?

Okay... But I doubt you were there when the statiticians did the actual statistical analysis.

Collecting the data does not mean that you personally analyzed said data. Essentially, I'm calling B.S. on your fallacious appeal to authority. :cool:

[kylejack]

So... You worked the phones and collected the data?
Correct.

Okay... But I doubt you were there when the statiticians did the actual statistical analysis.

Collecting the data does not mean that you personally analyzed it. Essentially, I'm calling B.S. on your fallacious appeal to authority. :cool:
You're right, I didn't participate in that, however, that still blows away that silly "the 6% that voted for Bush!!" because we didn't know if they voted for Bush. We asked qualifying questions: "Do you intend to vote in a primary? Which primary? How likely are you to vote in the primary?" This is how the "likely voter" numbers are calculated. Yes, they may be skewing to an older crowd due to previous attendance, but I can't blame them, because youth rarely turns out at primaries or general elections. As Hunter S. Thompson said after Kerry's failed campaign (which was thought to have strong youth power): "Yeah, we 'rocked the vote' all right. Those little bastards betrayed us again."

[foofighter20x]

Is one of the questions ever "did you vote in the last primary?"

[Proemio]

Thread bogus. Gallup dials random numbers.

LOL - did you stamp your foot too while typing b-o-g-u-s?

I assume the Mises Institute is not an 'approved' source among TRUE Ron Paul revolutionaries.

If anything, the linked article is too tentative; the reality being much worse. And the 'random numbers' deflection is just that - deflection. How do you suppose they get the desired sample within the criteria stated. They obviously would call random numbers from a list of tens of thousands of people meeting the criteria; like previous republican primary voters, or whatever.

[kylejack]

Is one of the questions ever "did you vote in the last primary?"

It never was when I was polling.

[kylejack]

LOL - did you stamp your foot too while typing b-o-g-u-s?

I assume the Mises Institute is not an 'approved' source among TRUE Ron Paul revolutionaries.

If anything, the linked article is too tentative; the reality being much worse. And the 'random numbers' deflection is just that - deflection. How do you suppose they get the desired sample within the criteria stated. They obviously would call random numbers from a list of tens of thousands of people meeting the criteria; like previous republican primary voters, or whatever.

Mises Institute? The only link I saw in the OP was Youtube and Blogspot. Where's the Mises bit?

[richard1984]

I think you're exactly right. The media is essentially brainwashing the country into thinking Ron Paul can't win.

I think that's the keyword: "brainwashing."

The American people have been and are being brainwashed.

I hope to write a book on this some day so as to help prevent it from happening again.

[PollM]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html

I just made a YouTube video with that information called "True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIiQcCyuxU)"
Please rate and Digg it (http://digg.com/videos/educational/ANGRY_TIME_True_Reason_for_Ron_Paul_s_Low_Scientif ic_Polls)!


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters :mad:

How do we combat this?

------------------------------------------------

Results:

Putting aside your favorite candidate, whose Policies in the Republican Party stand the best chance against Hillary Clinton?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=711


.

[briatx]

I think that's the keyword: "brainwashing."
The American people have been and are being brainwashed.


It is quite obvious too. Mainstream news will not mention Ron Paul without pointing out that he has "no chance to win", or that he's a "long shot" or that he has "powerball odds". Or trying to infer that he's not Republican because he's libertarian.

The media's first tier / second tier thing by itself tells the weak minded masses which media approved candidates they can support without appearing "fringe" or "kooky".

This is why the Internet supports Ron Paul. We all see through the media for the propaganda that it is.

[Proemio]

Mises Institute? The only link I saw in the OP was Youtube and Blogspot. Where's the Mises bit?

Strange... the link is in the post you quoted and responded to with b-o-g-u-s.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=278436&postcount=39

The link to the Mises Institute, embedded in the post linked above:
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=122&sortorder=issue

[kylejack]

Strange... the link is in the post you quoted and responded to with b-o-g-u-s.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=278436&postcount=39

The link to the Mises Institute, embedded in the post linked above:
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=122&sortorder=issue

I don't know what kind of integrity problems Gallup had in 1940, but they're pretty unblemished now. Their poll results reflect reality, as exit polls and election results repeatedly indicate.

[Proemio]

I don't know what kind of integrity problems Gallup had in 1940, but they're pretty unblemished now. Their poll results reflect reality, as exit polls and election results repeatedly indicate.

Exit polls and election results ONLY indicate that the polls just before them was valid and accurate - that's the benchmark for the industry. There is no way to verify the results between elections. The temptation to 'monetize' the credibility obtained from those verifyable results is just too great, and does not even include the enormous pressure from such things as 'national security' reasons and the good old 'raison d'état'.

I predicted months ago that polling result will eventually and magically adjust the closer we get to voting day, and be very accurate. In the mean time, you can bet that they also produce very accurate results for their clients only, to think-tank and focus-group appropriate responses - probably daily.

As for the 1940 dismissal: "And the more things change..." and all that. I doubt that the current gang in power is any better than the one at that time, mainly because it is the same gang since 1913. I'll say it again; the stakes today are arguably bigger than they were then.