<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Grading the Pollsters for the 2006 Elections</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/grading_the_pollsters_for_the_2006_elections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/grading_the_pollsters_for_the_2006_elections/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:53:54 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/grading_the_pollsters_for_the_2006_elections/comment-page-1/#comment-104289</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:48:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/grading_the_pollsters_for_the_2006_elections/#comment-104289</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;It’s hard to believe that robot callers–on whom I immediately hang up–are more likely to get a response.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

The article is stating that robot-calls were more accurate, not more plentiful, than human conducted ones.  The common wisdom in the industry is that respondents are more open and honest to a computer than they are to a human, and this seems to enforce that idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>It&rsquo;s hard to believe that robot callers–on whom I immediately hang up–are more likely to get a response.</p></blockquote>
<p>The article is stating that robot-calls were more accurate, not more plentiful, than human conducted ones.  The common wisdom in the industry is that respondents are more open and honest to a computer than they are to a human, and this seems to enforce that idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: madmatt</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/grading_the_pollsters_for_the_2006_elections/comment-page-1/#comment-104286</link>
		<dc:creator>madmatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/grading_the_pollsters_for_the_2006_elections/#comment-104286</guid>
		<description>But they all did better than Rove who had the #&#039;s ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But they all did better than Rove who had the #'s ...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/grading_the_pollsters_for_the_2006_elections/comment-page-1/#comment-134569</link>
		<dc:creator>http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/grading_the_pollsters_for_the_2006_elections/#comment-134569</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-pre%--&gt;        Original Article syndicated via RSS from Outside The Beltway &#124; OTB &lt;!--%kramer-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--%kramer-pre%-->        Original Article syndicated via RSS from Outside The Beltway | OTB <!--%kramer-post%--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
