OK, here’s another factor to toss into the consideration-blender: A couple hours’ telephone time has reacquainted me with the Caller ID factor.
Are some (or all) of the professional call centers that do paid polling set up so that the recipient does not see the caller’s originating telephone number? Many folks have a service now where incoming calls of this nature are blocked. Some such blocks return a voice message to the caller, “Speak your name and organization at the beep” and then go to connect the call (with or without some kind of subsequent filter, I don’t know??). Some blocks return a voice message “Enter your own area code and phone number now in order to complete this call”. At least a few simply result in a recorded voice message “If you want to make this call, unblock your caller ID and dial again”.
Presumably more than a few people have some type of system (automated or plain old “peek before lifting receiver”) for screening out callers, and in swing states during election season would have ample reason to be tired of receiving calls from pollsters and PACs.
Question: would there likely be any politically-skewed distribution occurring as a consequence of systems that deny incoming calls to sources that have Caller ID blocked?
If I may humbly go out on a limb, I predict Kerry by 7.5 with a MOE of 1.
Are there any prizes for being right?
BTW, John Mace, in case you’re reading this I’ve got to admit that, after reviewing the issue and being a sarcastic bastard, I’ve changed my mind and have decided that you’re right. I’m sorry about having to admit error but I just found out that in 2000 Fox was exceptionally close at predicting the outcome of the election. Also, I watched Fox News Sunday the other week for the first time in ages and was genuinely impressed by Chris Wallace’s frying of Condoleeza Rice. (I wish George Stenopholis would do something like that. That boy is such a flaccid weenie.) What’s also impressive is that the panel of the usual suspects were shaking their heads over Bush while Juan Williams seemed to have actually grown a spine.
I suspect, however, that the change is only temporary for Fox. Wallace may be a consistently fine reporter, I haven’t seen enough of him to say. Murdoch loves his reactionary propaganda. Once the present collection of irresponsible wackos is safely tossed aside, I expect a reversion to normal.
And, if the Sox win tonight, that’s got to be an omen.
Interesting point. I have caller ID and never answer the phone unless I know who is on the other end. I suspect that this would skew things to the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. I’m beginning to think that the betting sites are where you need to look for the best data, even though they tend to contradict my own prediction (of a Kerry win).
Got it. I have to wonder if Fox has changed much over the years. I never used to watch it until recently and just don’t see the “obvious right wing bias” that so many people profess to see (or perhaps were used to seeing and just assume that it continues).
Well, John, you should subject yourself to their Saturday morning “investment” shows, which these days always start out with something which just assumes that 100% of the audience is behind Bush. Today it was that the Dow being higher on Election Day than it was on some other date I disremember - probably Labor Day - predicted a win for the incumbent, while down meant a win for the challenger. So, says the host, the Dow has to rise 500 points in 6 days to predict a Bush win. And this was the first question on the show: how likely this would be, with the obvious assumption that everyone’s rooting for Bush.
I have nothing against a 5% gain in a few days, Lord knows, but it has nothing to do with Bush.
Anyway, I see by the latest map on electoral-vote.com that Florida’s tied - wotta surprise - Ohio is doing what it’s supposed to, leaning Kerry’s way, but that the People’s Republic of Minnesota is in the Bush column. Where’s elucidator? I want to see an explanation of this one, especially since Jesse Ventura’s endorsed Kerry. He’s looking a bit odd these days, though.
BUSH, George W. (Republican Party) 1.44
KERRY, John (Democratic Party) 2.60
NADER, Ralph (Independent) 501.00
Looks like those who are betting think Kerry’s chances are growing more dim. Dang, I wish I knew exactly how this online betting stuff works. With 1.3:1 odds for Kerry, that is one wager I’d be willing to make.
Well, I did disenfranchise anyone who started his post with anything like 'it’s really too close to call…". There were a few posters who tried to make a prediction while hedging so strongly that I had to assume they really weren’t making one.
True enough; I assume (but really have no idea) that Cheney and Edwards would become the new nominees (maybe after a very-hastily-convened pair of emergency conventions?), but even if not, an elephant or a donkey would still keep the prize out of Nader’s reach.
