« Flip-flop -- Blago now a more-gambling fan | Main | The Fly returns »

January 13, 2006

The Dope does a Jacobs-Rumler poll

The Dope did a Jacobs-Rumler poll. Unscientific but interesting. Lots of discussion at The Inside Dope

Posted by jcb at January 13, 2006 10:20 AM


Very interesting. As is the shrill quality of some of the comments.

Posted by: Michael Romkey at January 13, 2006 12:07 PM

Very interesting indeed, and the Jacobs goon(s) are out in full force. I put the "s" in parentheses because it seems likely to me that all of the support is coming from the same "anonymous" poster.

Posted by: Ananamoose at January 13, 2006 02:38 PM

Hey Dope! The yellow letters on a white background in your comment section make some of us seniors strain our eyes too much. Please reconsider your color combinations in the comments section. ( I would have posted this over at The Dope's place, but I couldn't see to do it!)

Posted by: paladin at January 13, 2006 03:10 PM

This Poll is made up. The Dope can say whatever he wants on his anon site. At least when you make up a poll you have the guts to sign your name.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at January 13, 2006 05:28 PM

Given the holiday Monday, do you suppose a local politician will make an impassioned speech in favor of keno in which he compares himself to Martin Luther King?

The devil made me say that!

Posted by: M at January 13, 2006 06:14 PM

Nothing like the smell of censorship early in the morning!!

Posted by: John Adams at January 14, 2006 07:13 AM

Those who know about these things already know, but for those who may not, the poll referenced here is not in any way, shape, or form, "made up".

It's a polling service which is hosted at a company somewhere and it's literally impossible to change or influence the votes.

Those (or the person) who doesn't like the fact that Sen. Jacobs got his ass handed to him in this poll have been going bizerk posting dozens of comments, at a rate of one a minute at times, ranging from trying to quote some statistics text which they don't understand to accusing Paul Rumler of running the poll, to accusing the poll of being "made up" to accusing Rumler of insulting Lane Evans, to taking nasty disgusting swipes at Rumler for seriously goofy reasons. Frankly, they're just losing their minds and lashing out at anything that enters their fevered minds.

I've posted many of them just to give people a glimpse into the mindset of this person. I've also screened out many which were so irresponsible, so full of lies, and so disgusting that I just couldn't find a reason to post them, not even as humor.

It's truly disturbing and considering the source, even more so.

Posted by: The Inside Dope at January 15, 2006 01:05 AM

Please review the following written by the DOPE and determine his penchant for truth telling!

Q. Are my comments REALLY anonymous?

DOPE. Absolutely, positively, yes. There is no possible way I could ever find out who leaves comments even if I had the desire to.

Q. I’m afraid to contact you via e-mail. What about my anonymity in that case?

DOPE.Again, I can assure you that your identity will never be revealed. If you contact me via e-mail, obviously the only thing I’d know would be your e-mail address. This certainly doesn’t provide enough to go on to identify anyone. But if you’re still concerned or wish to keep your “regular” address private, I suggest you sign up for any of the many free e-mail addresses such as through Yahoo or Hotmail. You can register with any name you want, and pick any address you can dream up.

I will never divulge anyone’s e-mail address on the site without the owner’s prior approval. Your address will never be passed on to anyone.


Posted by: FUNWITHDOPE at January 15, 2006 11:02 AM

I don't get your point. The Q&A you quote above is I believe from the FAQ's on The Dope's site. So far as I know The Dope has never "revealed" anyone's email address.

The Dope uses different software than I do, so I don't know exactly how it works. The software I use -- Moveable Type -- leaves the option of requiring an email address or not from commenters. I don't require them. If a commenter leaves an email address -- fake or not -- it shows up with the comment. If no email address is included, none shows up.

For example, you included the email address bob@hotmail.com with your post. It shows up (mouse-over the name you used, FUNWITHDOPE, and the email address, real or not, is there). If you hadn't included it, it wouldn't be.

I'd guess the same is true with the software The Dope uses.

If your idea of "funwithdope" -- or anyone else -- is to make unsubstantiated charges of lying, then you're one sick puppy.

Posted by: jcb at January 15, 2006 11:33 AM

I've never revealed anyone's e-mail address or identity of any commenters.

I find our little friend's comment very revealing.

First, I've only speculated that the source of most (if not all) of the venomous, nasty, and frankly, lying comments were from Mike Jacobs himself. I've never said I had 100% proof. (99% maybe, but not 100%)

The fact that this "person" now writes in freaked out and accusing me falsely of revealing identities seems to confirm the suspicions of the many, many people who've come to the same conclusion.

Very interesting.

The fact remains that the identity of a commenter doesn't have to be clearly stated for people to get a pretty darn good idea of who it is.

When the commenter has left literally hundreds upon hundreds of comments, it's pretty easy to identify, even when they lie about who they are or pretend to be someone else. There's just telltale signs and it doesn't take a genius to spot them.

There's more than ample clues which this commenter has left which point directly to one person.

What I wrote in my F.A.Q. is absolutely correct I have never, nor will I ever, reveal anyone's e-mail address, and it's simply not possible for me to know a commenter's identity with certainty unless they reveal it themselves. Those are simply the facts.

I think the desperate and grasping nature of this person, Jacobs or whomever, speaks for itself.

Posted by: The Inside Dope at January 15, 2006 01:12 PM

...and furthermore.. (sigh) there's a couple more points that should be made, though I'm sorry I have to take up space here rather than at my place. My apologies John.

First, the poll was not "made up". Anyone with even a simple knowledge of how these polls work knows that, and anyone who has read my blog knows that I'm not about to "make up" anything like that.

The poll was hosted by a polling service and all votes were cast to that service, counted by that service, and reported by that service. I had nothing to do with it, nor could I, other than pasting the little chunk of code for the poll into my site. If Mike or whoever thinks the Bravenet, the enormous web services site "made it up", I suggest he take it up with them. (http://www.bravenet.com/)

Otherwise, he should accept the fact that he got spanked hard in an online poll and move on rather than having a rather embarassing online nervous breakdown for all to witness.

I find it almost humorous for this person, who routinely lies through their teeth and/or invents stories attempting to damage their opponents to accuse someone else of making something up. Nearly every single one of their comments consists of making something up, as anyone who's read them for any length of time can attest. Facts and reality are beside the point in this person's urge to smear, threaten, and lie.

Then when owners finally get sick of the endless drivel after having dutifully posted it (even though they don't have to) in the interest of fairness and in fervent hope that this person might get a clue one day and refuse to post their disruptive stuff, they then scream "censorship", as if they have some God-given right to completely disrupt someone's blog with their lies and invective, thus making rational discussion impossible.

Folks like this are truly a plague on blogging, and unfortunately, about the only remedy is to simply screen out such comments and make sure they never reach the blog.

But this is a difficult judgement call as well, as on the one hand, you always want to err on the side of allowing all comments, and you also have a desire to let other people see just how crazy their posts are in the hopes that maybe the other readers might shame them or run them off. (so far, sadly, this hasn't happened. Maybe readers just like the train-wreck aspect of it and just sit there mesmerized by all the ugliness.)

But on the other hand, they contribute precious nothing to the discussion, are nothing but disruptive and have no purpose than to agitate and provoke, and generally run off otherwise sensible commenters, who generally seem to sit by mute when these vandals (known online as "trolls" come along.

Though the problem could be eliminated by simply not allowing any such comments, it's very difficult to resist letting people see what we're dealing with.

If Jacobs (or whoever) is freaking out because he's been "outed", he has no one but himself to blame. No one has "outed" him, he's "outed" himself through his innumerable abusive comments.

I find it amazing that they're so shocked that people were able to put two and two together.

Of course, he could have wised up and stopped the ridiculous comments at any time. But even though they reveal very ugly things about the author, they show no signs of being bright enough to stop. Yet another troubling aspect of it all.

Judging by their comments, I've got more honesty and integrity in my little toe than this commenter has in his entire body.

Posted by: The Inside Dope at January 15, 2006 01:46 PM

Damn... I knew I had two things to say... forgot the second one... This will be short... promise.

This is to Paladin who says that he has trouble reading my comment area because it's yellow on a white background?

It's always shown up as black on white for me, and I've asked others and they report the same.

If it's showing up in yellow type or whatever, contact me via e-mail and I'd be glad to try to help you figure out how to fix it. It's apparently only showing up that way on your computer.
(if others are having the same problem, let me know)

Posted by: The Inside Dope at January 15, 2006 01:52 PM

Anyone poll that allows people to select themselves - to volunteer to be interviewed - is ripe with bias.

The DOPE POLL consist mainly of supporters that are intensely interested in the subject, and it highly unrepresentative of likely Democrat primary voters. As in all nonprobablity samples, one cannot generalize the results of volunteer samples to whole populations. Since the Dope's procedural errors do not occur randomly, they are termed sampling bias.

In his book, Polling and the Public, Herbert Asher warns consumers about media manipulation - and hence to biased poll results- inherent in media sampling techniques, interviewing procedures and the existence of "non-attitudes."

I have tried and tired to explain these concepts to the DOPE, but he has taken to censoring comments that he or she deems favorable to Jacobs.

As flawed and as biased as DOPE’s polling methods are, they are better than jcb's. As jcb has a history of making-up polls and reporting them as fact! As a former Dispatch reporter and current NEWS EDITOR it's sad that I have to tell you that, and if you do not understand that, you are one very sick puppy! And that is no lie!

Posted by: mediawatch at January 15, 2006 02:16 PM

"Mediawatch" --or whoever you are -- you are truly remarkable.

I have NEVER conducted a poll, or EVER said that I've conducted a poll. But you transform NO polls ever into "a history of making up polls." Quite, quite bizarre.

You, or someone who sounds remarkably like you, has been this kick since this post I made last month:
Pig plant things...
. Read through that string again and try once more to grasp the difference between an "opinion" and a "poll."

I have no real hope that the difference will penetrate, but do try.

You might try, too, to grasp that the best way to say something favorable about Sen. Jacobs is to, well, say something favorable about Sen. Jacobs, rather than post lies about other people.

Posted by: jcb at January 15, 2006 03:29 PM

Comment from "mediawatch" disallowed. He/she is still on about the "poll" that doesn't exist. (See the two posts immediately above)

Posted by: jcb at January 16, 2006 10:47 AM

"Bill Clinton" asks in a comment I'm otherwise not using -- "Are you censoring things now ..."

Yup, "Bill," I am. You, by whatever name you're using at the moment, are going to have to find some other outlet for your trash.

Posted by: jcb at January 16, 2006 12:47 PM

"The poll can't be cosidered an accurate reflection of the Democrat primary voters in the 36th district."

- Theinsidedope

After days of trying to convice bloggers of the opposite, DOPE bowed to public pressure this morning and totally reveresed his course!

Who said you can't teach an old dog new tricks? Looks like their is hope for you yet jcb!

Posted by: ENDGAME at January 17, 2006 10:45 AM

Twist, twist, twist ...

Please find any quote you can from The Dope's blog that says the poll there was "an accurate reflection of the Democrat primary voters in the 36th district" or was accurate about any group of voters.

In fact, The Dope repeatedly explained all the poll's many shortcomings.

Unless you can find and share the quote that says otherwise, don't expect to see your next comment show up here.

Posted by: jcb at January 17, 2006 01:00 PM

Sen. Mike Jacobs was selected by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich to escort him from the Senate to the House for his State of the State adress. Quite an honor for a young freshman Senator. Looks like all his hard work is paying off by having the Govs ear on WIU for the people of the 36th

Posted by: Anonymous at January 18, 2006 02:56 PM

Twist, twist, twist!!
Whose twist is best.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 18, 2006 09:01 PM

Gee, I've been at the D/A for nearly 22 years and don't know of a former reporter who now is NEWS editor. Methinks mediawatch is lying.
It's amazing how people can be so insane about their comments when they don't have the guts to sign their name to them.

Posted by: Jackie at January 20, 2006 12:06 PM