Most poles which feature Yingluck seem to have her coming outright between 49-53%, has anyone else noticed this? Perhaps there is no differentiation in the eyes of the public between "popularity", and the actual question being asked in each particular pole. I like Larb too, but I would not vote it the most healthy meal, the most popular meal, the most creative meal to cook, the most exciting meal, all at once. Something tells me some in the Thai public, either through being deceived or by pure lack of differentiation between what the question was and what larb is to them, might.

Interesting to see Abhisit has a low rating, could this indicate his overall popularity has dropped in light of the recent murder accusations? If only he were more corrupt, because as we know corruption is good, clap clap.

Curiously, why is a fugitive outlaw who is currently in exodus holding no title or position whatsoever in current Thai politics allowed to feature in this pole? I accuse the posting editor of attempting to promote the political status of a corrupt politician currently on the run. Is editorial activity this legal or does it demonstrate a lack of respect for the king by suggesting that one can continue to operate within the doors of politics after serious acts are committed and that his laws should not be upheld? I believe they should in every case, and the inception of this persons name into this pole is against the ideals of the law.

Plainly the position in the Poll was "Created" for him,there is no show without a free publicity mention,for Thaksin.

Edited December 27, 201213 yr by MAJIC

Most poles which feature Yingluck seem to have her coming outright between 49-53%, has anyone else noticed this? Perhaps there is no differentiation in the eyes of the public between "popularity", and the actual question being asked in each particular pole. I like Larb too, but I would not vote it the most healthy meal, the most popular meal, the most creative meal to cook, the most exciting meal, all at once. Something tells me some in the Thai public, either through being deceived or by pure lack of differentiation between what the question was and what larb is to them, might.

Interesting to see Abhisit has a low rating, could this indicate his overall popularity has dropped in light of the recent murder accusations? If only he were more corrupt, because as we know corruption is good, clap clap.

Curiously, why is a fugitive outlaw who is currently in exodus holding no title or position whatsoever in current Thai politics allowed to feature in this pole? I accuse the posting editor of attempting to promote the political status of a corrupt politician currently on the run. Is editorial activity this legal or does it demonstrate a lack of respect for the king by suggesting that one can continue to operate within the doors of politics after serious acts are committed and that his laws should not be upheld? I believe they should in every case, and the inception of this persons name into this pole is against the ideals of the law.

Plainly the position in the Poll was "Created" for him,there is no show without a free publicity mention,for Thaksin.

If such Polls are to be believed for Yinglucks popularity,then it naturally follows that Thaksins Popularity has hit the floor big time!

Edited December 27, 201213 yr by MAJIC

I think creative was a bad translation and the more appropriate translation was 'constructive'.

As in 'corporations are people too' ?

^ as in Yingluck was voted the most constructive politician, just replace creative with constructive when reading the OP.

I applaud her creativity in finding reasons to avoid a certain important chamber in Thailand.

the reference is hardly tenuous, there are many many many similar references

and therefore the conclusion is hardly arbitrary

but yours was. If 1000 is a decent sample size to measure 200 million then 1200 is not too small, is it.

the only position to take to invalidate the poll would be that the polling company did not use a random sample.

sigh. I said something about arbitrary and tenuous before, denied, rinsed then repeated.

You draw the conclusions you want. I'll take it all with 1kg of salt.

if you dont understand how polls work, then fine

the reference is hardly tenuous, there are many many many similar references

and therefore the conclusion is hardly arbitrary

but yours was. If 1000 is a decent sample size to measure 200 million then 1200 is not too small, is it.

the only position to take to invalidate the poll would be that the polling company did not use a random sample.

sigh. I said something about arbitrary and tenuous before, denied, rinsed then repeated.

You draw the conclusions you want. I'll take it all with 1kg of salt.

if you dont understand how polls work, then fine

How many posts have you made in other threads since I posted this? why dig it up 3 days later to make such an insightful retort?