Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>
>
> You're exactly right, Miles. They don't *necessarily* show a systematic
> error. But they present a prima facie case for wondering about one -- esp.
> when considered in the light of the problems we are facing now, when the
> majority of the same polls, using the same methods, seem to be
> systematically oversampling Republicans to a comical degree. It makes one
> wonder whether whatever distorting force is causing that was at work to a
> lesser extent four years ago.
Does it make much difference? I'm a little puzzled by what I have come to think of as the "sports reporting" nature of conversation on this list for months now. It is like reading sports columns speculating on who is going to win the divisional title, et cetera. After all, we find out late Nov. 2 or Nov. 3. So why not explore more interesting questions.
It's sort of a waste of human brain power.
Carrol