There is an Arlo Guthrie song about 'the last man', then man that we all need, to feel sorry for, to humiliate, to kick when they are down, to laugh at, to scorn.

That is the role of Andrew Bolt.

Once you've peed on Alan Jones and David Oldfield, there's always Bolt.

He makes us feel better, superior, better than him.... see, we all need a 'last man' to make ourselves feel better.

Forrest Gumpp,
Exactly and well expressed.

Well said TBC.

Every creature contributes to the whole.

:)

Too true Ammonite, even the slugs of the forest, the humble clegg (although maybe not the UK one), and the slithering serpents of commercial TV and radio, oh, and all the NewsCorp staff even, oh, and Gillard and Abbott, yes, even the subspecies have a role to play.

spindoc concludes his opening post by asking:

"GY, do you have any concerns in relation [to]
on-line opinion polls and have you any suspicions
of your polls being distorted?"

Obviously I cannot answer that question for GrahamY, nor do I seek to, but I think it is worth noting that OLO opinion polling is seemingly done, at least in part, if not exclusively, 'by invitation'. I don't think I am breaching any confidences in quoting from an email sent by Graham Young to me (among others), which says:

"I'm writing to you because you have contributed
to our surveys in the past and you have indicated
you are happy to receive invites from us to participate
in more. This current survey looks at the hung parliament
along with the usual political questions."

It seems the basis for being invited to participate in the OLO surveys is at minimum that one be a registered user of the site, and to have contributed comments. (There are registered users of OLO who have never commented according to their user history, for whom OLO would nevertheless hold an email address: I wonder whether any of these are asked to participate?) Whether there are any additional selection criteria applied, such as having posted to particular articles or topics, or total numbers of posts over time, used as the basis for invitation to participate, I don't know. GrahamY also has included this invitation to addressees:

"If you know anyone else who could be interested
in completing either questionnaire, please forward
this email on to them [using the link below]."

It would therefore appear unlikely that someone wishing to skew an OLO result by voting multiply (other than as an as-yet-undetected sockpuppet) would be able to casually access the survey incognito, the address for which is contained in the invitation email. There would exist an electronic papertrail in any event, should suspicions be aroused as to skewing.

I'm assuming that observations as to the perceived merits or demerits of AB would be considered off-topic by the OP. My position: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4393#111731

spindoc's opening post describes an aspect of online polling that can easily go unnoticed.

That aspect is that the results displayed are in many cases PROGRESSIVE results of a poll still being taken, rather than FINAL results posted after a poll has closed.

It consequently has to be questioned as to whether the publication of progressive results, while the poll still remains open to further voting, facilitates or encourages any 'bandwagonning' effect amongst those who have not yet voted, or among those who, otherwise than as a consequence of learning of the progressive result, may not have intended to vote at all, to cast a vote. Should a 'bandwagonning' effect in fact exist, would it amount to a skewing of the poll results?

If a 'bandwagonning' effect is recognised amongst pollsters generally as existing, could the negative result on Andrew Bolt's site be one deliberately engineered by those running the poll in the belief that more viewers of the site might thereby be encouraged to (genuinely) vote? Those running the poll and displaying the progressive results would know at any point precisely the extent to which, and to what effect, they had inserted dummy votes. Those viewing the site (the 'mug public'), and its progressive poll results, would have no such information, and would be able to be kept in the dark as to the real result, and size, of the genuine sample of opinion taken.




To the outside view, a display of seemingly paradoxical unpopularity of AB's new TV show. To those really running the poll, secret knowledge as to the true result otherwise hidden in plain sight from the 'mug public', for what it may be worth, of the poll taken.




It indeed may be that what those conducting the online poll may be sampling is not AB's popularity, or the lack of it, but the extent to which AB's TV show's apparently flagging popularity in the poll elicits any response from the viewing public to attempt to either counter, or emphasise, that apparent result by voting in that poll.

Caveat elector!