On 1/2/2016 at 4:33 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Polling the way the media currently does it, essentially, is based on the same kind of suspense as in game shows. The purpose is so the media can get and keep eyeballs.
As dopamine spurts from anticipation in the viewer's head, his or her eyeballs are directed at the unknown but anticipated outcome. And there are plenty of pundits on 24/7 to talk about nothing but that.
Drumpf supporters know all about this, though, even though they may not formally know much about neurochemicals.[...]
Drumpf supporters want serotonin more than dopamine at this stage.
Dopamine is the neurochemical allied to anticipation of a reward. Serotonin is the neurochemical allied to social dominance. Don't think Drumpf himself doesn't know this stuff, neurochemical names and all.
Oddly enough, I don't think the professional pollsters know much about neurochemistry and persuasion.
On 12/29/2015 at 6:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:On 12/29/2015 at 4:46 PM, Marc said:
I think that this threads most important point was made recently by William who thoroughly explained how polls need to be converted to votes and sometimes the difficulty in doing this .
In other words, it's a law of nature that if you consistently win polls, you don't win elections. That just doesn't happen to anybody.
On 12/23/2015 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Drumpf has only won an unprecedented string of polls in a presidential primary so far because that's all he can win. Nothing else is available.
On 1/8/2016 at 3:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
As a Drumpf supporter looking at the countdown, here are some of the things that catch my interest a lot more:
More useless polls, I know. These are polls, not votes...
On 1/26/2016 at 10:05 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
I know my stuff about Drumpf supporters because I am among them. I interact with them. I read them and talk to them.
Try it and you will see.
You want polls as a replacement for your eyes?
Like a poll of Objectivists who truly believe in Rand's ideas? You would need a poll to figure that one out?
On 2/14/2016 at 8:19 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
As usual, Drumpf is killing it on the Drudge and Time online polls about who won the debate. So far, he's leading by over 40% on Drudge and over 60% on Time. He's even leading on TheBlaze poll right now by 10%, but later that will be reversed when Beck's Cruzbots show up and mass vote.
On 2/17/2016 at 1:23 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:On 2/17/2016 at 11:44 AM, william.scherk said:On 2/17/2016 at 10:59 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Of course, we all know that polls are not reality.
I don't know what 'everyone' knows or what you think about polls -- and I don't believe you hold the opposite corollary to your one-liner: "We all know Polls are Reality." Maybe somewhere in between is your considered opinion.[...]
Did you read into the poll I mentioned above that broke out Drumpf supporter's views on various issues of policy, preferences and attitudes? Do you find yourself represented in those soundings?
Anyhow, you are probably unlikely to give us an essay on polling. T
Boy, did you get that right. My thing is human nature, not running stats on the answers to multiple choice questions.[,,,]
Now we come to polling. [...] That's why I treat polls more like a score of a football game than the hard reality of what will happen if we get this election wrong.[...]
Polls are like cotton candy for nutrition.
On 2/26/2016 at 9:53 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
btw - Drumpf is crushing it as usual in the online polls about who won the debate.
I only looked (and voted ) at Drudge and Time, but I presume the others are doing similar.
Well... I just looked (and voted ) at TheBlaze and he's killing it there, too. (Beck probably loses sleep over this because Drumpf actually won the last one on TheBlaze, even after the Cruz bots woke up. )
On 3/14/2016 at 7:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
What's making you a sourpuss all of a sudden?
It wouldn't be the latest polls in Ohio [...], would it?