>If that's all they've got, I'm afraid they've got nothing. If their
>results contradict all their basic theories and assumptions, then we have
>to assume there's something wrong with their methods -- unless they can
>explain what's wrong with the theories and assumptions. The burden is on
>them to explain the discrepency.
>
>Tossing out their their entire framework on the basis of divergent results
>would be mindless empiricism.
Pollsters can be mindless empiricists, which is both their virtue and their flaw.
But I think the theory is that nonvoters are passive and disengaged, and thoughtlessly absorb the dominant discourse.
Doug