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