So, I've been reading all sorts, and I mean ALL SORTS, of articles about polls showing that Republicans are going to lose so bad in this mid-term election, that they may as well be better off not showing their heads after Nov. 7 until around the time the groundhog inspects its shadow.
Now, I'm just curious here, but if Nov. 7 proves to not be the Republican bloodbath all these polls are showing, what will that mean for polls overall? I've never really liked polls (too many of them, in my opinion), but I've still managed to cling to a spider-web spindle of faith in at least some of them. So if, come Nov. 8, there's not, at least, five dead Republicans on my doorstep (cause of death, several donkey kicks to the head), I'm not sure I'll ever again have any faith whatsoever in polls and those who hold them up as gospel.
Then again, I have so little faith in anything nowadays, a loss of faith in polls probably won't matter all that much.
UPDATE: Except for poop and fart talk. I'll always have faith in that. In fact, I'm thinking about establishing a church set up specifically to worship poop and farts. Adherents will engage in Communion and witness the wonders of Transubflatulation.
Dark Knight. Heath Ledger. Batman. The Joker. Dark Knight. Heath Ledger. Batman. The Joker. Dark Knight. Heath Ledger. Batman. The Joker.
Posted by Ryan at November 2, 2006 10:36 AM | TrackBackWell, for instance when the UN sends in international observers to verify an election's validity, discrepencies between exit polls and vote counts are one of the things that they look for to determine vote fraud. Especially if the discrepencies seem to favor one party over another consistently or are in some other way conspicuously non-random. So if the polls are really off, it might be cause to take a closer look at how the votes are being counted.
Posted by: flamingbanjo at November 2, 2006 12:08 PMI'm aware of the possibility of vote fraud, but I'm also aware neither party is innocent in that regard.
And I'm not a fan of Diebold machines, either.
Posted by: Ryan at November 2, 2006 12:21 PMThe last gubernatorial election in Washington certainly illustrated that there were, ahem, "irregularities" on both sides. However, as a general rule, if vote fraud is taking place the first place you want to look is at the party that's getting the votes. If you want to find out who ate the baby, look for the fat snake.
I've already voted. Most people in Washington vote by absentee. Built in paper trail. Plus you can vote in your underwear!
Posted by: flamingbanjo at November 2, 2006 12:50 PMYou paranoid, underwear-clad Washingtonians.
Posted by: Ryan at November 2, 2006 01:28 PMI can't help but think that this particular piece of ThunderJournalism was somehow inspired by something I have written.
Poop fart poop fart poop,
LF
Posted by: LearnedFoot at November 2, 2006 02:42 PMMaybe just the UPDATE. Mmmmmaaayyyyybe.
Posted by: Ryan at November 2, 2006 02:47 PMThere was a news piece today about a non-Diebold e-voting machine that has a button on the back that lets a voter vote more than once just by holding it down. The machine emits a loud beep but still, I don't get how incredibly freakin' botched the electronic voting machines are.
Also, Diebold is seriously considering stopping the production of e-voting machines.
The numbers I saw on the news last night: 52% of Americans plan to vote Democrat next week, 33% plan to vote Resnublican, oops, Republican.
One of the local Republican candidates is now calling himself an Independent which makes me want to go kick him in the head.
Posted by: Johnny at November 2, 2006 04:12 PMAnd I'm not a fan of Diebold machines, either.
But you do make snide comments about people who think the Diebold machines might be rigged by Republican supporters.
Which I find kind of cute and endearing.
Posted by: Joshua at November 3, 2006 07:08 AMIn much the same way I view dead voters "votes," yes.
Posted by: Ryan at November 3, 2006 10:02 AMThe Strib even invented the "closing Republican surge" in order to cover up their intentionally misleading polling. That way, they can claim that Hatch leads by 11 points, but still explain away Pawlenty's victory. Curious, no?
Posted by: Sean at November 6, 2006 02:01 PM
Stumble It!
