October 28, 2024 • 24 mins
The truth about polling. ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listen Saints KFI AM six forty, the Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio FFI Handle here and
the Morning Crew. It is a Monday morning, October twenty eighth.
Week from tomorrow is the presidential election. Man, it is
going to be just insane this year, I mean beyond insane.
(00:22):
To give you an example, I'm going to talk more
about this in the next day or two. To give
you an example, over one hundred lawsuits have already been filed.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
In this presidential election.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Can you imagine what's going to happen at the end
of the election.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
We're not going to know for several days who wins
or not. Tell you one thing, we know for a.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Fact that well, I know for a fact Donald Trump
will not accept. If Kamala Harris wins, simply will not
accept it. Is there a chance that she's not going
to accept? Smaller And I just can't wait for this
thing to blow up. And I'm going to talk about it.
I think tomorrow we're going to talk about what are
the possibilities, and I'm going to talk about Halloween coming up.
(01:06):
But first let's talk about polling, because all this week
we're going to pay attention to the polls, and here
are the perception about polls and models of polling. These
are raw snapshots of public opinion.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
This is what it is.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Here's what happened yesterday when a recent poll was taken.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Well, those aren't snapshots.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
That's simply false because the data, real data, is massaged
based on possibly reasonable results, just judgments made by polsters
and forecasting stages who interpret and adjust the numbers before
presenting them to the public. And this happens all the time,
(01:52):
where you have these numbers that are looked at and
then they are massage.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
You don't get raw numbers.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
What we yet numbers after the pollsters have done their polling,
have done the questioning. Then we have to look at
what was the question, how was it asked, who answered it,
and try to break that down, break that down demographically.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
So it's become really difficult.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Even sampling random sampling in the digital age have become
very difficult, even more so, which means that without the
corrections they put in there, the numbers wouldn't be representative.
And therefore everything that's representative or everything that's told to
us includes a margin for error, right plus plus or
(02:41):
minus three points. Well, we really don't know. We have
no idea. What we do see is the end product.
For example, let's say Donald Trump in one of the
battleground states has fifty point two percent, not fifty point
three percent. Fifty point two percent. What the hell does
(03:03):
that mean? Does that mean that's his chance of winning
the presidency? Fifty point two with a three percent margin
of error? Okay, that's nothing. So these you think, then
therefore forty seven to fifty one or forty eight to
fifty one, Therefore it's a real number.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
It is not. It gives us an impression of certainty.
There is no certainty. Now. Early American polls, I'm gonna
give you a little bit of.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
History here, were completely unscientific, but you look at them
and you go, wow, they were right on. For example,
earliest part of the twentieth century, there was a magazine
called The Literary Digest, which sent sample ballots to millions
of its readers. That's how they would figure out to
(03:55):
its readers. And to give you an idea of how
many people sent those ballots. By the way, the magazine
correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election from nineteen
sixteen to nineteen thirty six, and this is just sending
out sample ballots. And in thirty six Franklin Roosevelt ran
(04:17):
against alf Landon and the Digests sent out ten million
sample batlets and receive two point four million back. This
is a response rate of twenty four percent. Today, if
polsters get a two percent response rate, that's considered insanely good.
(04:37):
Twenty four percent. So based on those here's what the
Digest predicted. FDR would receive forty one percent of the
vote and he would be slaughtered by alf Landon. Instead
of forty one percent of the vote, FDR gets sixty
one percent of the vote. It was a land slide,
(05:00):
I mean a massive landslide.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
So why what happened? Why did the poll fail?
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Well, here's who they here's who answered the polls, and
here's who read the Digest.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
They got their people from directories of automobile and telephone
ownership during the depression. Guests who owned telephones and cars
during the depression wealthy people. Matter of fact, during the Depression,
there were people didn't have electricity. This is when the
Tennessee Valley Authority, established by FDR, electrified the entire Tennessee Valley,
(05:36):
which had no electricity, and so what happened was land
and supporters were far more likely to send back their
samples and FDR reporters, making the poll not just completely
useless but wildly misleading.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
And because of that you had more scientific.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Polls that were created, like the one that was neered
by George Gallup. And we're gonna look at poles all week,
and we think that polls within the margin three points
up or down are legitimate, which means that everything is
there dead heat right now. But the reality is polls
aren't really that scientific, even though they're getting more and
(06:19):
more scientific. So the logic of quote a scientific poll
is pretty straightforward. You get a truly random sample from
a broad range of the population in which every person
has about an equally likely chance of being included.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
In the poll. Then you pull the stats out.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Obviously, if you've got one hundred million voters or one
hundred and fifty million voters, you can't very well poll
one hundred and fifty million people, so you.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Pull a sampling.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
And here is the scary part which I've never understood.
The pollsters tell us, if a poll is done well,
you can get a legitimate poll with about twelve hundred respondents.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
The way Nielsen.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Works in terms of for example, television, right, Let's say
you have one hundred million people or one hundred and
twenty million people watching television on a given night. They'll
ask twelve hundred people what they're watching, and based on that,
you now have a show that is number one or
(07:28):
number forty five.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
And you go, that's crazy. Well that's what they say.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
It's significant if it's truly a random samples. However, how
do you get them? Okay, telephone book and you call them,
or you have a voter registration the roles of voter registration.
I know people that will not register to vote because
(07:56):
they don't want to be on jury duty, which means
they're never going.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
To be asked. How many of those does that skew
the poll could be? And how about those that say
it's a telephone.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
You're looking at a phone now that they're done on
cell phones, you don't see the number.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Are you gonna answer the poll? No, because you're gonna
recognize the number. You're not going to answer the phone.
When I answer the phone and it's a polster, I go,
I'm not interested in taking the poll.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
It takes too long, not interested, and so the numbers
are completely skewed.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
And here's one, here's a great one.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
There was a study out of the University College London
and tested various methods found in eighty two percent of
participants in a survey lied about themselves to either get
into the poll because it makes them feel important, or
to get paid. And they do pay a small amount
(08:54):
of money. I think the radio pollsters, don't they, Neil,
you were involved in that for a peer time when
you were in management looking at the ratings. Weren't people
in the days we had diaries, people would write down
Because we didn't have the technology, people just write down
what they wrote.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I don't know that we're allowed to talk about it,
quite honestly.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
I'm talking about history. Are we not allowed to talk
about what happened historically?
Speaker 2 (09:20):
All right? I'll give it to you. All right.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
So here's the bottom line, based on information that KFI
has gotten scientifically. Nobody listens to this show, but thank
you very much for not listening.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Am I allowed to say that, Neil?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Does it matter if I say yes or no what
you're going to say? And the other thing that happens
in polling and I'll finish up with this to give
you an idea of just how weird it is. Different
demographics have different weights. What does waiting mean based on
the fact that certain group of people respond to polls
(10:02):
in different percentages? For example, what they go after White
people they respond in x percent. Hispanics respond fewer that
are asked for the polling.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
They're weighted more.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
In other words, you have fifty whites, they are weighted
less than fifty Hispanics because the Hispanics.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
I'm just throwing something out. It's not necessarily Hispanics or anything.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
But just different demographics are weighted differently, where the numbers
may point out to one thing, but the waiting is different.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Waiting weight like in weights. And so this whole thing
is so difficult to understand.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
It's so there's so statistics involved, so many statistics involved,
that the world of polling is so insanely complicated. Oh
here's the other thing. How about this. Every campaign has
their own pollsters. There are Democratic pollsters that work for
the Democratic Party, and there are Republican polsters that work
(11:09):
for the Republican Party. And the best story about polling is,
I think who I'm trying to remember who The pollster
was for Jimmy Carter. But over the weekend he told
Jimmy Carter was in pretty good shape with Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Polling wise, it was pretty close. And it all collapsed
over the weekend.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
Before the vote, and he had to tell Jimmy Carter,
you're going to lose the race.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And Carter wouldn't believe him.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
He said, look at my look at what's going on.
You know, look at how close we are. And the
pollster said, uh uh, your polls.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Are collapsing, and he was right, So there are. And
I don't know why I threw that in there. It's
just a great little bit of history. I wanted to
share with you. But as we look at the polls,
keep in mind.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
That, yeah, well they can be wrong big time. Look
at the polls that were with Look at Hillary versus
Donald Trump in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
I'm the one that says she's gonna win. Look at
the poles she's gonna win.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Look at the polls, and the last minute it turned
around for a whole bunch of reasons.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
All Right, we're gonna talk more.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
About the polls coming up over this path over this
next week, because well this election is completely completely insane.
And this is when it's a good thing to be
involved in the world of talk on radio because we
get to play with this thing like very few people do.
All right, hey, why don't we do this? Do they
have a case with Wayne and me? Wayne, just go
(12:37):
right into it.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Yes, we have.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
You're gonna love this case. Two law firms. Learner and
Row is one of them. The other one is the
Accidental Law Group. Didn't they write a musical Learner in Row,
great musician? Most one of them did. Okay, So the
Accident Law Group engages in what's called conquesting. This is
(13:00):
where you buy a search term on Google in the
name of your competitor, so that when people search for
your competitor, they will be directed first in the search
results to your website. And this is what the Accident
Law Group did. They bought Learner and Row as a
search term. Now, of course, Learner and Row is trademarked
(13:21):
by Learner and Row, so as you might imagine, Learner
and Row said, uh, we are suing you for trademarked infringement,
violating the Lanham Act and the Accident And one thing
you should know about conquesting is in and of itself,
it's totally legal and it is quite common. So the
Accident Law Group says, we have done nothing wrong because, yes,
(13:46):
it's true, when people search for you, they're the first
search result is US.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
But once they click on us, we in No, it's
very clear it's us.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
It's very clear it's not you. It's very clear it's us.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Therefore, there is no consumer confusion, and you must have
consumer confusion to be in violation of the Lanham Act
and have a trademark claim. So the lower court says, yeah,
I mean, it's maybe underhanded in some way, but it's
(14:22):
not illegal. So Learner and Row go up to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and so what do you
think about this? That is, if the resulting website does
not in any way misrepresent itself.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
This gets really interesting because there's a couple points here
I want to bring up.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
It certainly has.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
A smell test issue where it appears underhanded and sleezy,
and they're not even saying it's not underhanded and sleazy.
What it is is it's not confusing, and the law
does not prohibit us from doing that. One of the
things the court could say, is there's no violation here,
and if Congress wants to pass something that is violative
(15:05):
of law, pass the law that says you cannot do that,
and that.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Would be the easiest way out. I am, Oh, it's
interesting which way I'm going to argue.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I think their argument that it is not confusing and
confusion has to be an issue. I think that that
is going to prevail, even though it is the sleaziest
underhanded thing.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
It has happened to me.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
By the way, just to let you know, you've gone
there are places where my name has been and it
immediately goes to a law firm that you know, I
have nothing to do with, and they do things that
I go, what are you doing? And they that's exactly
what they did. Now you know, was there any confusion, Well, yeah,
(15:55):
there's all kinds of confusion confusing me with the law
in any way that's legitimate.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
I get that. But I think what the court said,
and this is.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I think they went on the language of the statute
that did not make that any kind of violation and
agree that it was horrible. And I would say they said,
if Congress wants to change it, they can change it.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
That's my take on that what happened? All right, that's
pretty good.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Now I'm going to give you just a statistic here
from the case, because, as you know, Learner and Row
would have to prove there was confusion. So they were
able to get one hundred and nine thousand, three hundred
and twenty two specific times that somebody searched for Learner
and Row and instead ended up at an alg website,
(16:52):
and in two hundred and thirty six of those instances,
the caller mentioned Learner in Row even though they were
talking to Accident Law Group, which is a zero point
two one percent of the total number of consumers that
were conquested.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Yeah, that makes good.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
You feel stronger that there was not really actionable confusion.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Yeah. I think that's a good argument, saying there were
so few that uh, and that's the only data out there.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
There were so few that were that actually were confused.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Uh. We were voting or were ruling in favor of
Learner and Learner and Low who wrote South Pacific.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
It's actually Accident Law Group that wins. They're the conquests, right.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
That's what I That's what I basically didn't I say
that that's.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Exactly what you wanted to make your your Learner and
Low jokes.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
So yeah, that's what I say against.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Learner and Low, who wrote so many beautiful musicals. Yeah
all right, all right, well you got that one right.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah, it's and that's a that's a little wonky and
really interesting.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
This is what I love about this segment is you
come up with these.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Cases, have you made sure that you have purchased or
the people behind Handle on the Law have purchased Handle
on the Law on Google? Have you purchased Yeah, I
have Bill Handles show podcast on Google.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yes, yes, somebody else.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
And the point is that none of that is a
referral service, and it goes to referral services that are
other people. And yeah, it's just really sleazy, to say
the least.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Okay, guys walking down the street with some friends celebrating
his birthday. There's some street musicians playing in a parking lot,
so this group stops to listen to the street musicians,
and here comes Sergeant Reginald Beasley Detroit p D, who,
for reasons that may never be known, is walking past
(18:52):
them with a couple of other officers and says to
these four people who are standing on the sidewalk watching
the musicians and I'll have to censor it. But he goes,
he just walks by and he goes keep that ass moving.
So the birthday boy engages him in a little conversation
(19:12):
about like why are you talking to us like that?
And then Sergeant Beasley says, you need to keep moving.
So the birthday boy says, what why why can't we
just stand on the sidewalk, And then Sergeant Beasley says,
you have five seconds to get moving, and the birthday
(19:33):
boy says, or what? And then Sergeant Beasley goes five four,
three and on two, grabs the guy's arm and pulls
his handcuffs out with the other hand, which is not
fair because he said the guy had to the count
of five. So one of the friends grabs the guy.
(19:58):
Here the plaintiff grabs his arm, pulls him away, walks
him away from Sergeant Beasley, and then the birthday Boy's
girlfriend comes over to him and they're you know, she's
trying to like, hey man, let's not cause a scene whatever. Meanwhile,
(20:18):
Sergeant Beasley has decided it's taser time, so he pulls
out his taser.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
He's pointing it at these two.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
The girlfriend has her arms around her boyfriend a hug. Now,
I know you don't like hugs bill generally speaking, but
this sergeant apparently didn't like other people hugging. So while
the girlfriend is hugging her boyfriend, whose back is turned
(20:45):
to the sergeant, Sergeant Beasley tases him right in the back,
and then they're both arrested for a resisting arrest. Now,
they actually went to a trial and were acquitted.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
How it comes? How does the prosecution even go there?
Speaker 1 (21:05):
I mean, based on what you said, and then there
are witnesses and I don't even see how that's going there.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Well, probably because Sergeant Beasley's side of the story is
that the birthday boy was resisting arrest.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Okay, but why was he being arrested? You got me? Okay.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
This is now the lawsuit against sergeant Beasley for excessive force.
He wants qualified immunity. I didn't violate anybody's constitutional right.
He was resisting arrest, so I tasted him, I'll have
you know. And this will probably wrap up the presentation.
The law in the Sixth Circuit is an officer can
(21:50):
taste somebody if they're actively resisting arrest, which requires violence
or a show of force or hostile language, coupled with
failing to comply with an officer's commands.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
If it is.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
Passive resistance, you are not allowed to tasee somebody. So,
hearing what happened and Sergeant Beasley saying I should get
qualified immunity because he was actively resisting arrest, what do
you think the Sixth Circuit did, given the description of
the facts that I've just given you.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Okay, unless this is a trick question, no, I promise you,
I don't in my pocket.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
I don't see how he could would be able to
claim immunity, not only based on the facts as you
describe him, but let's say there actually was some kind of.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
A basis of immunity, something you could hang your hat on.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
In the most minor way, Beasley's acts were so egregious
that even if qualified immunity would somehow connect in the
most minor way, he's gone beyond the pale in terms
of the egregiousness factor. So I think, I mean, that's
that's an easy one. I don't see how he could
(23:16):
possibly prevail one.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Of course, no, theF the officer now will face a
lawsuit for excessive force.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
And how does he stay a lot.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
How does he stay at an officer under those circumstances?
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Now you know there's there are police officers who are
adjudicated against and stay on the force.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I mean, we don't at this point.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
We don't know right now the lawsuit goes forward, we
don't know what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
We don't know what the Detroit PD is going to do.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
But these people who were just trying to enjoy a
birthday were really put through a lot of Hell.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Yeah, immediately when you said it's taser time, I was
thinking of mc hammer and.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
The cops starting to dance around it's taser time.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
All right, We'll talk again next week at eight point
thirty once again. Thanks way, all right, that's it, We're done, guys.
Tomorrow morning we start all over again at five am
wake up call with Amy and then Neil and I
come aboard and we go through the show until right
about now and tomorrow I'm gonna do the story of
the the apples with the razor blades in them for Halloween?
Speaker 2 (24:22):
How true?
Speaker 1 (24:23):
And did I really get in trouble when I tried
that a couple of years ago. I will come back
and you will to coming up.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
What are we going to do? I don't know. We'll
see you tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Everybody KFI AM six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Catch My Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listen Saints KFI AM six forty, the Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio FFI Handle here and
the Morning Crew. It is a Monday morning, October twenty eighth.
Week from tomorrow is the presidential election. Man, it is
going to be just insane this year, I mean beyond insane.
(00:22):
To give you an example, I'm going to talk more
about this in the next day or two. To give
you an example, over one hundred lawsuits have already been filed.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
In this presidential election.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Can you imagine what's going to happen at the end
of the election.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
We're not going to know for several days who wins
or not. Tell you one thing, we know for a.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Fact that well, I know for a fact Donald Trump
will not accept. If Kamala Harris wins, simply will not
accept it. Is there a chance that she's not going
to accept? Smaller And I just can't wait for this
thing to blow up. And I'm going to talk about it.
I think tomorrow we're going to talk about what are
the possibilities, and I'm going to talk about Halloween coming up.
(01:06):
But first let's talk about polling, because all this week
we're going to pay attention to the polls, and here
are the perception about polls and models of polling. These
are raw snapshots of public opinion.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
This is what it is.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Here's what happened yesterday when a recent poll was taken.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Well, those aren't snapshots.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
That's simply false because the data, real data, is massaged
based on possibly reasonable results, just judgments made by polsters
and forecasting stages who interpret and adjust the numbers before
presenting them to the public. And this happens all the time,
(01:52):
where you have these numbers that are looked at and
then they are massage.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
You don't get raw numbers.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
What we yet numbers after the pollsters have done their polling,
have done the questioning. Then we have to look at
what was the question, how was it asked, who answered it,
and try to break that down, break that down demographically.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
So it's become really difficult.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Even sampling random sampling in the digital age have become
very difficult, even more so, which means that without the
corrections they put in there, the numbers wouldn't be representative.
And therefore everything that's representative or everything that's told to
us includes a margin for error, right plus plus or
(02:41):
minus three points. Well, we really don't know. We have
no idea. What we do see is the end product.
For example, let's say Donald Trump in one of the
battleground states has fifty point two percent, not fifty point
three percent. Fifty point two percent. What the hell does
(03:03):
that mean? Does that mean that's his chance of winning
the presidency? Fifty point two with a three percent margin
of error? Okay, that's nothing. So these you think, then
therefore forty seven to fifty one or forty eight to
fifty one, Therefore it's a real number.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
It is not. It gives us an impression of certainty.
There is no certainty. Now. Early American polls, I'm gonna
give you a little bit of.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
History here, were completely unscientific, but you look at them
and you go, wow, they were right on. For example,
earliest part of the twentieth century, there was a magazine
called The Literary Digest, which sent sample ballots to millions
of its readers. That's how they would figure out to
(03:55):
its readers. And to give you an idea of how
many people sent those ballots. By the way, the magazine
correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election from nineteen
sixteen to nineteen thirty six, and this is just sending
out sample ballots. And in thirty six Franklin Roosevelt ran
(04:17):
against alf Landon and the Digests sent out ten million
sample batlets and receive two point four million back. This
is a response rate of twenty four percent. Today, if
polsters get a two percent response rate, that's considered insanely good.
(04:37):
Twenty four percent. So based on those here's what the
Digest predicted. FDR would receive forty one percent of the
vote and he would be slaughtered by alf Landon. Instead
of forty one percent of the vote, FDR gets sixty
one percent of the vote. It was a land slide,
(05:00):
I mean a massive landslide.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
So why what happened? Why did the poll fail?
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Well, here's who they here's who answered the polls, and
here's who read the Digest.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
They got their people from directories of automobile and telephone
ownership during the depression. Guests who owned telephones and cars
during the depression wealthy people. Matter of fact, during the Depression,
there were people didn't have electricity. This is when the
Tennessee Valley Authority, established by FDR, electrified the entire Tennessee Valley,
(05:36):
which had no electricity, and so what happened was land
and supporters were far more likely to send back their
samples and FDR reporters, making the poll not just completely
useless but wildly misleading.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
And because of that you had more scientific.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Polls that were created, like the one that was neered
by George Gallup. And we're gonna look at poles all week,
and we think that polls within the margin three points
up or down are legitimate, which means that everything is
there dead heat right now. But the reality is polls
aren't really that scientific, even though they're getting more and
(06:19):
more scientific. So the logic of quote a scientific poll
is pretty straightforward. You get a truly random sample from
a broad range of the population in which every person
has about an equally likely chance of being included.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
In the poll. Then you pull the stats out.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Obviously, if you've got one hundred million voters or one
hundred and fifty million voters, you can't very well poll
one hundred and fifty million people, so you.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Pull a sampling.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
And here is the scary part which I've never understood.
The pollsters tell us, if a poll is done well,
you can get a legitimate poll with about twelve hundred respondents.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
The way Nielsen.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Works in terms of for example, television, right, Let's say
you have one hundred million people or one hundred and
twenty million people watching television on a given night. They'll
ask twelve hundred people what they're watching, and based on that,
you now have a show that is number one or
(07:28):
number forty five.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
And you go, that's crazy. Well that's what they say.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
It's significant if it's truly a random samples. However, how
do you get them? Okay, telephone book and you call them,
or you have a voter registration the roles of voter registration.
I know people that will not register to vote because
(07:56):
they don't want to be on jury duty, which means
they're never going.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
To be asked. How many of those does that skew
the poll could be? And how about those that say
it's a telephone.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
You're looking at a phone now that they're done on
cell phones, you don't see the number.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Are you gonna answer the poll? No, because you're gonna
recognize the number. You're not going to answer the phone.
When I answer the phone and it's a polster, I go,
I'm not interested in taking the poll.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
It takes too long, not interested, and so the numbers
are completely skewed.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
And here's one, here's a great one.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
There was a study out of the University College London
and tested various methods found in eighty two percent of
participants in a survey lied about themselves to either get
into the poll because it makes them feel important, or
to get paid. And they do pay a small amount
(08:54):
of money. I think the radio pollsters, don't they, Neil,
you were involved in that for a peer time when
you were in management looking at the ratings. Weren't people
in the days we had diaries, people would write down
Because we didn't have the technology, people just write down
what they wrote.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I don't know that we're allowed to talk about it,
quite honestly.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
I'm talking about history. Are we not allowed to talk
about what happened historically?
Speaker 2 (09:20):
All right? I'll give it to you. All right.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
So here's the bottom line, based on information that KFI
has gotten scientifically. Nobody listens to this show, but thank
you very much for not listening.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Am I allowed to say that, Neil?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Does it matter if I say yes or no what
you're going to say? And the other thing that happens
in polling and I'll finish up with this to give
you an idea of just how weird it is. Different
demographics have different weights. What does waiting mean based on
the fact that certain group of people respond to polls
(10:02):
in different percentages? For example, what they go after White
people they respond in x percent. Hispanics respond fewer that
are asked for the polling.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
They're weighted more.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
In other words, you have fifty whites, they are weighted
less than fifty Hispanics because the Hispanics.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
I'm just throwing something out. It's not necessarily Hispanics or anything.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
But just different demographics are weighted differently, where the numbers
may point out to one thing, but the waiting is different.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Waiting weight like in weights. And so this whole thing
is so difficult to understand.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
It's so there's so statistics involved, so many statistics involved,
that the world of polling is so insanely complicated. Oh
here's the other thing. How about this. Every campaign has
their own pollsters. There are Democratic pollsters that work for
the Democratic Party, and there are Republican polsters that work
(11:09):
for the Republican Party. And the best story about polling is,
I think who I'm trying to remember who The pollster
was for Jimmy Carter. But over the weekend he told
Jimmy Carter was in pretty good shape with Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Polling wise, it was pretty close. And it all collapsed
over the weekend.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
Before the vote, and he had to tell Jimmy Carter,
you're going to lose the race.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And Carter wouldn't believe him.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
He said, look at my look at what's going on.
You know, look at how close we are. And the
pollster said, uh uh, your polls.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Are collapsing, and he was right, So there are. And
I don't know why I threw that in there. It's
just a great little bit of history. I wanted to
share with you. But as we look at the polls,
keep in mind.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
That, yeah, well they can be wrong big time. Look
at the polls that were with Look at Hillary versus
Donald Trump in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
I'm the one that says she's gonna win. Look at
the poles she's gonna win.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Look at the polls, and the last minute it turned
around for a whole bunch of reasons.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
All Right, we're gonna talk more.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
About the polls coming up over this path over this
next week, because well this election is completely completely insane.
And this is when it's a good thing to be
involved in the world of talk on radio because we
get to play with this thing like very few people do.
All right, hey, why don't we do this? Do they
have a case with Wayne and me? Wayne, just go
(12:37):
right into it.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Yes, we have.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
You're gonna love this case. Two law firms. Learner and
Row is one of them. The other one is the
Accidental Law Group. Didn't they write a musical Learner in Row,
great musician? Most one of them did. Okay, So the
Accident Law Group engages in what's called conquesting. This is
(13:00):
where you buy a search term on Google in the
name of your competitor, so that when people search for
your competitor, they will be directed first in the search
results to your website. And this is what the Accident
Law Group did. They bought Learner and Row as a
search term. Now, of course, Learner and Row is trademarked
(13:21):
by Learner and Row, so as you might imagine, Learner
and Row said, uh, we are suing you for trademarked infringement,
violating the Lanham Act and the Accident And one thing
you should know about conquesting is in and of itself,
it's totally legal and it is quite common. So the
Accident Law Group says, we have done nothing wrong because, yes,
(13:46):
it's true, when people search for you, they're the first
search result is US.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
But once they click on us, we in No, it's
very clear it's us.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
It's very clear it's not you. It's very clear it's us.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Therefore, there is no consumer confusion, and you must have
consumer confusion to be in violation of the Lanham Act
and have a trademark claim. So the lower court says, yeah,
I mean, it's maybe underhanded in some way, but it's
(14:22):
not illegal. So Learner and Row go up to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and so what do you
think about this? That is, if the resulting website does
not in any way misrepresent itself.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
This gets really interesting because there's a couple points here
I want to bring up.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
It certainly has.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
A smell test issue where it appears underhanded and sleezy,
and they're not even saying it's not underhanded and sleazy.
What it is is it's not confusing, and the law
does not prohibit us from doing that. One of the
things the court could say, is there's no violation here,
and if Congress wants to pass something that is violative
(15:05):
of law, pass the law that says you cannot do that,
and that.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Would be the easiest way out. I am, Oh, it's
interesting which way I'm going to argue.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I think their argument that it is not confusing and
confusion has to be an issue. I think that that
is going to prevail, even though it is the sleaziest
underhanded thing.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
It has happened to me.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
By the way, just to let you know, you've gone
there are places where my name has been and it
immediately goes to a law firm that you know, I
have nothing to do with, and they do things that
I go, what are you doing? And they that's exactly
what they did. Now you know, was there any confusion, Well, yeah,
(15:55):
there's all kinds of confusion confusing me with the law
in any way that's legitimate.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
I get that. But I think what the court said,
and this is.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I think they went on the language of the statute
that did not make that any kind of violation and
agree that it was horrible. And I would say they said,
if Congress wants to change it, they can change it.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
That's my take on that what happened? All right, that's
pretty good.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Now I'm going to give you just a statistic here
from the case, because, as you know, Learner and Row
would have to prove there was confusion. So they were
able to get one hundred and nine thousand, three hundred
and twenty two specific times that somebody searched for Learner
and Row and instead ended up at an alg website,
(16:52):
and in two hundred and thirty six of those instances,
the caller mentioned Learner in Row even though they were
talking to Accident Law Group, which is a zero point
two one percent of the total number of consumers that
were conquested.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Yeah, that makes good.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
You feel stronger that there was not really actionable confusion.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Yeah. I think that's a good argument, saying there were
so few that uh, and that's the only data out there.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
There were so few that were that actually were confused.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Uh. We were voting or were ruling in favor of
Learner and Learner and Low who wrote South Pacific.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
It's actually Accident Law Group that wins. They're the conquests, right.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
That's what I That's what I basically didn't I say
that that's.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Exactly what you wanted to make your your Learner and
Low jokes.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
So yeah, that's what I say against.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Learner and Low, who wrote so many beautiful musicals. Yeah
all right, all right, well you got that one right.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah, it's and that's a that's a little wonky and
really interesting.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
This is what I love about this segment is you
come up with these.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Cases, have you made sure that you have purchased or
the people behind Handle on the Law have purchased Handle
on the Law on Google? Have you purchased Yeah, I
have Bill Handles show podcast on Google.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yes, yes, somebody else.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
And the point is that none of that is a
referral service, and it goes to referral services that are
other people. And yeah, it's just really sleazy, to say
the least.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Okay, guys walking down the street with some friends celebrating
his birthday. There's some street musicians playing in a parking lot,
so this group stops to listen to the street musicians,
and here comes Sergeant Reginald Beasley Detroit p D, who,
for reasons that may never be known, is walking past
(18:52):
them with a couple of other officers and says to
these four people who are standing on the sidewalk watching
the musicians and I'll have to censor it. But he goes,
he just walks by and he goes keep that ass moving.
So the birthday boy engages him in a little conversation
(19:12):
about like why are you talking to us like that?
And then Sergeant Beasley says, you need to keep moving.
So the birthday boy says, what why why can't we
just stand on the sidewalk, And then Sergeant Beasley says,
you have five seconds to get moving, and the birthday
(19:33):
boy says, or what? And then Sergeant Beasley goes five four,
three and on two, grabs the guy's arm and pulls
his handcuffs out with the other hand, which is not
fair because he said the guy had to the count
of five. So one of the friends grabs the guy.
(19:58):
Here the plaintiff grabs his arm, pulls him away, walks
him away from Sergeant Beasley, and then the birthday Boy's
girlfriend comes over to him and they're you know, she's
trying to like, hey man, let's not cause a scene whatever. Meanwhile,
(20:18):
Sergeant Beasley has decided it's taser time, so he pulls
out his taser.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
He's pointing it at these two.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
The girlfriend has her arms around her boyfriend a hug. Now,
I know you don't like hugs bill generally speaking, but
this sergeant apparently didn't like other people hugging. So while
the girlfriend is hugging her boyfriend, whose back is turned
(20:45):
to the sergeant, Sergeant Beasley tases him right in the back,
and then they're both arrested for a resisting arrest. Now,
they actually went to a trial and were acquitted.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
How it comes? How does the prosecution even go there?
Speaker 1 (21:05):
I mean, based on what you said, and then there
are witnesses and I don't even see how that's going there.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Well, probably because Sergeant Beasley's side of the story is
that the birthday boy was resisting arrest.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Okay, but why was he being arrested? You got me? Okay.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
This is now the lawsuit against sergeant Beasley for excessive force.
He wants qualified immunity. I didn't violate anybody's constitutional right.
He was resisting arrest, so I tasted him, I'll have
you know. And this will probably wrap up the presentation.
The law in the Sixth Circuit is an officer can
(21:50):
taste somebody if they're actively resisting arrest, which requires violence
or a show of force or hostile language, coupled with
failing to comply with an officer's commands.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
If it is.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
Passive resistance, you are not allowed to tasee somebody. So,
hearing what happened and Sergeant Beasley saying I should get
qualified immunity because he was actively resisting arrest, what do
you think the Sixth Circuit did, given the description of
the facts that I've just given you.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Okay, unless this is a trick question, no, I promise you,
I don't in my pocket.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
I don't see how he could would be able to
claim immunity, not only based on the facts as you
describe him, but let's say there actually was some kind of.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
A basis of immunity, something you could hang your hat on.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
In the most minor way, Beasley's acts were so egregious
that even if qualified immunity would somehow connect in the
most minor way, he's gone beyond the pale in terms
of the egregiousness factor. So I think, I mean, that's
that's an easy one. I don't see how he could
(23:16):
possibly prevail one.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Of course, no, theF the officer now will face a
lawsuit for excessive force.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
And how does he stay a lot.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
How does he stay at an officer under those circumstances?
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Now you know there's there are police officers who are
adjudicated against and stay on the force.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I mean, we don't at this point.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
We don't know right now the lawsuit goes forward, we
don't know what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
We don't know what the Detroit PD is going to do.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
But these people who were just trying to enjoy a
birthday were really put through a lot of Hell.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Yeah, immediately when you said it's taser time, I was
thinking of mc hammer and.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
The cops starting to dance around it's taser time.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
All right, We'll talk again next week at eight point
thirty once again. Thanks way, all right, that's it, We're done, guys.
Tomorrow morning we start all over again at five am
wake up call with Amy and then Neil and I
come aboard and we go through the show until right
about now and tomorrow I'm gonna do the story of
the the apples with the razor blades in them for Halloween?
Speaker 2 (24:22):
How true?
Speaker 1 (24:23):
And did I really get in trouble when I tried
that a couple of years ago. I will come back
and you will to coming up.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
What are we going to do? I don't know. We'll
see you tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Everybody KFI AM six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Catch My Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!