Polls are a Crock

Don't let unfavorable polls discourage you from voting.

by A Reaper

Do not let discouraging polls get you down! They aren’t a crystal ball – merely the “projected” outcome of a contest that is yet to be carried out.

Pollsters require two items: People questioned who give honest answers, and then, those people actually vote. Let that sentence sink-in.

It isn’t a “given” that any of the individuals polled will participate in the election! They may cast a ballot, but for whom isn’t etched in stone, either.

“Iron” Mike Tyson vs. Buster Douglas

Can you imagine Las Vegas casinos taking bets and establishing betting lines if they had no idea which athletes were going to participate in a major event? They would never do it! Yet pollsters make their predictions by “guessing” who is mostly like to vote in a very major event – the Presidential election!

But even when a big-time sporting competition is scheduled and the participants are known, it doesn’t necessarily mean bookies will take money on it. The casinos do this for a living; they have experts in the respective sport to guarantee money is made. And if they believe there is no upside? They will simply not accept any wagers.

In 1990, Mike Tyson faced Buster Douglas. Only one – just one – casino, The Mirage, would take bets on the fight. And they had “Iron” Mike as a 42-1 favorite. Tyson was undefeated facing a journeyman in Douglas.

Well, the unplanned happened: Douglas dominated Tyson nearly the entire fight; eventually knocking him out in the tenth round. Douglas was clearly “there” fight night while it was very apparent Tyson wasn’t.

What the casinos didn’t know? The seemingly invincible Tyson didn’t train for the fight, hile the underdog’s trainer, John Russell, put together the perfect game plan and made Douglas train harder than he ever had before – or after. One fighter “showed” up; the destructive Tyson wasn’t there. It is considered one of the biggest upsets in History.

Accentuate The Positive

You control the outcome more than any polling company. History is made by those who do – not those on the sidelines. You will vote.

And you do not have to vote alone! You have the ability to bring others with you – others who may have “skipped” voting if it wasn’t for you offering a ride. And one can be two, three or more!

Plus, you have the opportunity to have a positive influence on others – explain the reasons you are voting for Trump. Even if they dislike Trump, you can discuss and show the far-left ideologies Joe Biden would be bringing to Washington. Also, Joe is a habitual, serial liar; you can present this evidence to those who only watch the traditional media and thus haven't seen it.

The reality is, you have all the power: Power of Persuasion, Power of Getting Others to Vote and, most of all, the Power to Cast a Ballet Yourself.

“If things came easy, then everybody would be great at what they did, let's face it.”

 – Mike Ditka


A Reaper is the pseudonym of a businessman who sells his products to both Blue and Red Customers and wishes to remain anonymous.  Read other Scragged.com articles by A Reaper or other articles on Politics.
Reader Comments

I’m flabbergasted that anyone thinks that “do not vote for a liar” is an argument for voting for Trump.

Also, polls are not predictions and are not intended to be. They are simply a snapshot of what a representative group of people say.

October 28, 2020 7:02 AM


those who will vote for mr. trump this time around, and also voted for him last time, have different feelings about him this time than in 2016. i voted for him in 2016 because he was not ms. clinton. i had a secret clearance in the past, and had i treated classified material like ms. clinton had, i would have been fired immediately, and may very well have faced charges under the espionage act. ms. clinton exposed *top secret* information to the internet in ~100 emails, and she didn't even have her wrist slapped. she got special treatment because of who she is. so much for equal treatment under the law; it is obviously more important that the nomenclatura get special treatment. thus, if i had thought that it would have helped defeat ms. clinton, i would have voted for a tree stump. *who* was running was of little importance.

this time around, i will be voting for mr. trump because he has appointed judges to the federal bench who believe that the constitution should be read as having the most obvious interpretation: what is actually written in it. he has also reduced federal regulations, which has saved business owners a lot of money with compliance issues. the reduction in taxes has not hurt anything, either. a more important secondary reason, however, is that the comma laharris - biden ticket represents the socialist wing of the FASCISTcrat party. fascism and communism, the two extant flavors of socialism, have been responsible for roughly 100 million deaths in the past 100 years, and no socialist country - one in which either all property is owned by the State (communism) or in which property may be owned by individuals, but only at the convenience of the State (fascism) - has ever been a free nation (nor have any of them "evolved" into a free nation). with a 100% record of horrible failure, i would once again vote for a tree stump if i thought that it would help stop (potential) mass murderers.

October 29, 2020 11:04 AM

anybody who knows anything about statistics knows that "design of experiment" is a Big Deal. The pool of people from which U select your test subjects, the questions U ask them, the order in which U ask the questions, the time of day at which they are queried, and *lots* of other criteria are *EXTREMELY* important. thus, one can design a "suppression" poll by asking questions that cast one candidate in a good light and the other in a poor light, hoping to at least cause some test subjects to question their beliefs, and either change their support or not vote. statistically, if one "queries" enough people, one is *guaranteed* that one or both of the suppression goals will be met in some *actual* voters. more importantly, however, is whether or not the test subjects actually *do* vote, as U noted. all of the polls say that they spoke with "likely" voters, but *none* of the polls actually give *all* of the details of their experiment design. if i can't get enough information in order to replicate the poll myself (not that i would!), then i refuse to consider it relevant; *no* poll actually calls itself a suppression poll, even when it *is*.

finally, some people should avoid trying to evangelize the opposition; i am one of those people. given enough time and civil discussion, one can win an argument by presentation of facts, but one must be patient and willing to accept petulance from the one being evangelized; nobody is comfortable with seeing one's beliefs shown to be wrong. this requirement for time means that one should be a friend of the opponent, so that it is less likely that he will consider the presentation of facts as an attack (no guarantees, though!). in other words, one must work with a friend, be *very* patient, and not start evangelizing 3 days before the election; instead, one should start the day *after* the election so as to win the argument before the *next* election. i am not patient, and am also given to pitching my own hissy fits when attacked, *especially* when i have seen evidence refuting that which my opponent mistakenly believes.

on a side note, perhaps better "polls" might be those which require that the test subjects put *money* on their candidates. these are the folks that bet money on which candidate they believe will win. in these polls, there is but one question: "who do U think will win?" since few people want to lose money (other than those who are willing to *spend* it on the poll in order to distort the outcome), this type of poll might have a better chance to actually indicate the winner than the others.

October 29, 2020 11:13 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...