Has there ever been an instance of an unscientific poll being cited

[BurtWorm]

other than in Freeperville as evidence of some sentiment in the population at large?

If an MSNBC poll says 70% believe a certain Democrat's apology for something "is not enough," is there anyone who really gives a shit besides the people who votes in those polls?

I ask this as an unrepentent unscientific pollster myself. ;)

[WI_DEM]

1. if it's an internet poll where somebody (as we do on DU) can say

"Hey lets all go and vote in this poll" and gives a link then that poll is shit.

[tridim]

2. Honestly, I haven't voted in an online poll in about 2 years

They're irrelevant and a waste of time IMO.

Freeped polls are just that, Freeped, and everyone knows it.

[Hosnon]

4. I think they are relevant to a limited degree. Take an AOL poll...lots of people that are minimally

interested in politics check or participate in the polls.

Since there is a herd mentality when it comes to voting, the results of those polls may have some impact.

But that's about it for relevancy to me.

[BurtWorm]

6. That's an interesting thought.

It would be interesting to see scientific research into the impact of self-selected polls on people's choices and opinions.

:think:

[jody]

3. Yes, just visit DU's Guns forum and you will see many polls cited that do not meet

minimum statistical standards.

[TahitiNut]

5. Our elections themselves are "unscientific polls"

... if they're interpreted as "the will of the people" ... or a determinant of how ALL PEOPLE in the U.S think.

Elections, even assuming an accurate tally, ONLY reflect the will of THOSE WHO VOTE. Just like any "unscientific poll".

[BurtWorm]

7. Excellent point.

:patriot:

[lcordero2]

8. actually

Both sides should be unsatisfied with how this was handled. Kerry could have made an ultimatum that they will get an apology AFTER an emergency session of Congress in order to increase funds for the VA.

He could have told them, "Put your money where your mouth is"