The whole RW polling controversy is an 'Argument from Personal Incredulity'
In our solipsist age the argument from personal incredulity has become a dominant logical fallacy.
"I find X hard to believe, which is evidence that X is false."
Actually, the evidence that makes you not believe X is evidence that X is false... but the argument from personal incredulity is necessary when there is not evidence that would persuade anybody but you.
We see this all the time. "You can't tell me America will elect a Kenyan Marxist." Or, conversely, "You can't tell me a liar like Romney will get close to 50% of the vote."
You have the evidence of polls, but I have the evidence of my disbelief in polls. And in a mystical culture revelation is more reliable than evidence. Since I did not reason my way to my gut level rejection of polls I don't like it is a higher level of truth... it is received, not reasoned.
The biggest AFPI is evolution denial. The deniers are unanimous in arguing that they cannot believe "that something as complex as an eye could evolve through a series of small steps." It is actually self-diagnosis, rather than argument.
(Ironically, the eye is one of the best documented and most easily understood incremental developments... but to many it is indeed hard to imagine the process. And I grant that. It is, indeed, hard to really grasp the process. It is also really hard to grasp how large our sun is, but that isn't evidence of anything except an aspect of human psychology.
So we have all these Republicans thinking there is no way that America will vote for Obama because they have a hard time imagining it.
The funny thing is, I also have a hard time imagining it. My gut tells me that the American electorate is usually up to no good.
But I don't follow my gut when it is contradicted by evidence.
My gut tells me that the sun and the moon are the same size.