Entertainment
How to know whether you can trust a poll
A close election is all about uncertainty. So it’s not surprising that many Americans are relying on polls to offer comfort, or warning. Not all polls are created equal, however — and election experts caution that some are more impartial than others.
Not only that, pollsters vary wildly in their level of outreach, and how much they adhere to industry norms regarding data accuracy.
Take this poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University, which says Vice President Kamala Harris was ahead of former President Donald Trump by three percentage points in the battleground state of Michigan. On Twitter/X, the improved result for Harris buoyed her supporters, while Trump fans challenged the poll’s veracity.
Samara Klar, Ph.D., a political science professor at the University of Arizona’s School of Government and Public Policy, stresses transparency when it comes to deciding what polls to give credence to.
“A poll consumer should be able to clearly see how the data were collected, when it was administered, how many people are in the sample, and demographics of who they are,” Klar tells Mashable.
A weighty matter
Pay attention to whether a poll’s results are weighted, Klar adds, referring to the statistical technique done to data after collection. Weighting aims to correct sampling errors by measuring certain responses differently to account for the poll’s underrepresented groups.
For example, if few respondents of a poll are Gen Z, or female, that pollster may give more weight to younger women’s responses than older, male participants.
“If the data are weighted, it is helpful to know the criteria upon which the weighting was done,” says Klar.
Ideally, she adds, polls should have sample sizes close to 1,000 respondents, “as this allows for smaller margins of error and closer estimates.”
A margin of error — typically around 3% for 1,000 respondents — is a caveat, acknowledging a sample can never provide a full picture. The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) describes error margins as “the range that [a respondent’s] answer likely falls between if we had talked to everyone instead of just a sample.
Mashable Top Stories
“For example, if a statewide survey of adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points finds that 58% of the public approve of the job their governor is doing, we would be confident that the true value would lie somewhere between 55% and 61% if we had surveyed to the whole adult population in the state.”
‘No way to be sure a poll is reliable’
Even accounting for ideal sample sizes, weighted data, and margins of error, David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, paints a less rosy picture of polling accuracy.
“There is no way to be sure a poll is reliable because response rates are very low these days,” Wasserman says. “Every pollster is making a different assumption about who will turn out and vote that may or may not turn out to be accurate. You can give the same raw data set to 10 different pollsters and you might get seven or eight different top-line results of a survey based on how the pollsters assume each cohort of voters are going to comprise the electorate.”
If it seems like random polls are popping up everywhere lately — not just the ones from established pollsters like YouGov or The New York Times/Siena College — well, that’s because they are. “There are plenty of newer pollsters with no track record or very limited track record this cycle, as there were in 2022,” Wasserman says. “Democrats are fond of pointing to Republicans flooding the zone with Republican-leaning surveys.”
“There is obviously an effort by mainstream and other pollsters to correct the under-sampling of Trump’s base of support in 2016 and 2020. Pollsters are going about that in different ways but one of the most common ways is to weight their sample by how voters recall voting in the 2020 election.”
The weighting of so-called “recall votes” aims to correct the hesitation of some voters to admit they voted for a past presidential loser. So pollsters weighting recall votes this cycle would give more emphasis to those admitting to voting for Trump in 2020.
One thing that unites all good pollsters, according to both Klar and Wasserman, is adherence to standards set by the AAPOR. Members of the organization, which includes the most respected pollsters, agree to abide by the organization’s Code of Professional Ethics and Practices. That includes standards on training, transparency, sampling methods, and weighting.
Reaching voters in the modern age
The dearth of responses to most polls requires careful consideration regarding weighting, Wasserman says. While the idea that pollsters are ringing up landlines is outdated, Wasserman says, even contacting people through cell phones, texts, or online panels is a challenge.
Many pollsters have also started utilizing mail to reach respondents, according to the New York Times — often with an offer of a financial incentive to take an online poll, referred to as a probability panel. The new methodology is a way to counter the low response rates of randomly calling potential voters, which is something only one notable pollster, Quinnipiac, still does.
“It’s common for telephone polls, even if they’re overwhelmingly cell phone samples, to wield less than 1% completed responses,” Wasserman says. “For every 100 phone calls you’re making, you might get one completed survey, sometimes it’s less than that.
“Text to web modality is reaching younger voters. But it’s difficult to reach 18-34-year-old voters no matter what mode you’re using, so what ends up happening is pollsters up-weight the respondents they do get in that age bucket to reflect their expected share of their electorate. But pollsters have to make a judgment call about what share they expect.”
The Cook Political Report features a national polling average on its website, culling the latest data from a range of respected and diverse pollsters, like Fox News and ABC News/Washington Post. Three times this year, Cook conducted their own battleground state polls with a large online panel.
“We can’t be positive that our numbers reflect the true state of play, but we made our best effort to come up with an approach that our polling partners, a Democratic firm and a Republican firm, both felt comfortable with,” Wasserman says.
While imperfect, polls still serve an important purpose, Klar insists.
“Polls are great at showing us a snapshot in time: what do people think now,” she says. “Forecasting requires that polls predict the future: Who will actually show up to vote weeks, or months, or sometimes years, from now? Will people change their minds between now and then? If you’re interested in learning what people think today, then polls are tremendously valuable.”
On the other hand, “if you’re looking for a crystal ball to predict the future, you have to take poll results with a grain of salt.”
Entertainment
The Unhinged, Raunchy 80s Robot Sci-Fi Almost No One Saw
By Robert Scucci
| Updated
When I fired up 1987’s Robot Holocaust on Tubi, I was expecting a Mad Max-style scenario with a bunch of clankers running amok and wiping out humanity. Instead, I got a weird, loincloth-laden odyssey where the most expensive special effects are red lights, and the villain is basically a giant, walking, talking Dr. Zoidberg from Futurama. I know I’m being anachronistic by comparing a 1987 film to a character that didn’t exist until 1999, but that’s the comparison I’m making, and I’m sticking with it.
Let me have this, because the other reality I have to live with is that this movie is pretty rough. There are barely any robots, and what transpires hardly qualifies as a holocaust. The male-to-female buttcheek ratio sits at a clean 50:50, and the nudity isn’t even the good kind. Everybody’s wandering around in punishing heat all day, so you just know the smell is so bad you can almost taste it.
It’s Listed As A Sci-Fi But It’s More Of A Fantasy Quest
The best way to describe Robot Holocaust is an ill-fated cross between Mad Max and the original Star Wars trilogy. You’ve got a ragtag group of city-dwelling slaves living under the thumb of the Dark One, with his laws enforced by Torque (Rick Gianasi), the robot who looks like Zoidberg.
These wasteland slaves are trying to overthrow the Dark One, and their plan mostly involves a lot of unsexy walking as they run into enemies, obstacles, and, occasionally, robots.
Leading the charge is Neo (Norris Culf), a New Terra drifter accompanied by his C-3PO-esque companion, Klyton (Joel Van Ornsteiner). Along the way, he links up with Deeja (Nadine Hart), Nyla (Jennnifer Delora), Bray (George Gray), and Kai (Andrew Horwath), all of whom are fed up with the Dark One’s evil machinations and willing to trudge half-naked through asphalt and overgrown wasteland to do something about it.
Alliances and wills are tested, but the goal stays the same. Our heroes, and there are too many of them to really invest in, especially given their almost aggressive lack of charisma, need to find the Power Station where the Dark One resides and wipe out him and his goons once and for all.
Amateur Hour, But Not Without Its Charm
While Robot Holocaust mostly plays like a college film project with no budget, I can appreciate what writer-director Tim Kincaid was going for with limited resources. Most of the exterior shots look like people wandering around the outskirts of NYC, and most of the interior scenes feel like they were filmed inside a Spirit Halloween. A lot of my enjoyment came from the production notes I made up in my head, like, “Places, everybody! This fog and these fake spiderwebs set us back $25, making it the most expensive scene we’re shooting!”
That said, I’ve got to give the cast credit for committing to the vision, even if they’re reaching pretty far to get there. The robot costumes actually look decent from a distance, but the illusion falls apart in the close-ups, which we get way too often.
At the end of the day, Robot Holocaust is perfect home-viewing material. It’s only 79 minutes long and packed with a healthy dose of camp. It doesn’t make much sense, and when the primary antagonist is finally revealed, it’s basically just a guy dressed like an egg. For that reason alone, it’s worth a watch because it’s just so random.
As of this writing, you can stream Robot Holocaust for free on Tubi.
Entertainment
Apple TV IS Quietly Becoming The Best Streaming Option
By TeeJay Small
| Updated
When Netflix first made their pivot from DVDs-by-mail to home streaming, they revolutionized the way that people consume media. At the time, consumers were raving about a seemingly unlimited library of movies, TV shows, and even some proposed original programming. This came with zero ads, for a monthly subscription fee that cost less than the price of a single movie ticket. Streaming exploded in popularity, so much so that numerous studios and production companies rushed to develop platforms of their own.
In 2026, there are dozens of streamers, mostly offering small libraries of mindless junk sandwiched between more ad space than Times Square. The golden era of streaming might be dead for the likes of Netflix, but some streamers are still new and fresh, providing a glimpse into that short, sweet period when prices were low and production values were high. For my money, I’d say Apple TV+ is one of the best streaming services currently on the market.
A Worthwhile Loss Leader
Apple TV+ was first launched back in 2019. At the time, the streamer had very few original projects, and needed to quickly establish itself as a worthwhile investment. To do this, they priced their subscription at just $4.99 per month. They also included a free one-year subscription with the purchase of any new Apple hardware.
Over time, Apple producers began snatching up fresh, original IPs with reckless abandon, spending hundreds of millions on projects such as Oprah’s Book Club, The Banker, The Greatest Beer Run Ever, The Problem With Jon Stewart, Ted Lasso, and more. They even courted famed auteur directors like Martin Scorsese to opt for Apple exclusive premieres over the more traditional full theater release.
Today, Apple TV+ is rapidly becoming the premiere streamer for fresh new sci-fi shows. Severance is probably the most popular example of this, but Apple also has projects like Silo, Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, and Pluribus, created by Vince Gilligan. While this suite of high-quality shows is impressive, Apple’s real value is in their propensity to reinvent what a streaming platform is capable of. They’ve integrated the now-defunct iTunes Store into the streamer, so you can rent or purchase movies that aren’t streaming anywhere else. They also host podcasts, behind-the-scenes featurettes, and myriad other forms of bonus content.
There’s a larger reason why Apple TV+ is so good right now, and unfortunately, it’s sort of doomed to disappear. The truth is, the entire service is a loss leader. This term usually refers to things like $5 rotisserie chickens or Costco’s $1.50 hot dog meal, but it applies just as well to the landscape of streaming media. Apple TV+ is designed to get you invested in other aspects of the tech company, and they can afford to take a loss on it because they sell millions of iPhones each year. Netflix was also capable of burning through capital in its infancy, which is why we all fondly remember when it didn’t have ads and didn’t cost twice as much as a trip to the theater.
Right now, Apple TV+ costs $12.99 per month. That’s still a great price when compared to other streamers, and it’s well worth the price for Severance alone. While I have no doubt that Apple execs will tighten the leash on the streamer down the line, the service is currently in its experimental era. The bottom line is that it’s always good to get in on the ground floor of something. Streaming services seem to have a distinct life cycle, and Apple is currently living in the sweet spot.
Entertainment
Raunchy, R-Rated 80s Sci-Fi Comedy Is Impossible To Categorize, So Of Course It’s On Tubi
By Robert Scucci
| Published
If you want to be humbled by decades worth of unhinged creativity that somehow slipped past your radar, I strongly advise firing up Tubi at least once a week. This is not a paid ad, but if you can get me in contact with the head of programming over there, I’d love to send them an Edible Arrangement for never failing to entertain me with hidden gems like 2010’s Beyond the Black Rainbow, and unhinged sci-fi horror comedy neo-noir mystery thrillers like 1986’s Eat and Run. If that sounds like a mouthful, wait until you hear what this punisher is about.
This movie only showcases a handful of recurring gags, and they’re all run into the ground. The primary antagonist is a 400-pound humanoid alien who only eats Italian people. Our hero is a hapless detective who narrates his life out loud in hard-boiled private dick fashion. His boss is always snacking and yelling, and he’s dating a judge with a habit of releasing dangerous criminals from prison, noticing the uptick in murders, and failing to connect the dots. It all plays out like a second-rate Police Squad, but it’s still charming despite its shortcomings.
This Guy’s A Fool For Gabagool!
Eat and Run keeps things simple, and it’s best not to think about it too much while watching. When morbidly obese Murray Creature (R.L. Ryan) inexplicably arrives on Earth, he immediately takes to hitchhiking. He gets picked up by an Italian merchant, who he then eats. We never actually see Murray eating, though. He smiles, reveals his pointy teeth, the camera zooms in on his face, then on his victim’s, and it cuts to him spitting out what’s left, usually shirt buttons.
Meanwhile, Detective Mickey McSorely (Ron Silver), who compulsively narrates his life in real time, is getting chewed out by his Captain (John J. Fleming). The Captain, no matter the time of day, is always pigging out at his desk, and this gag escalates throughout the film. First he’s digging into ice cream cake, and by the end he’s berating a delivery boy for bringing a six-layer cake when he clearly asked for a seven layer cake.
When dozens of Italian men from competing crime families go missing, Mickey takes the case, eventually leading him to Murray, though he can never catch him in the act. He sets up elaborate sting operations in between romantic rendezvous with Judge Cheryl Cohen (Sharon Schlarth), whose record on the bench is questionable at best, and who constantly excuses herself after sex so she can take matters of self gratification into her own hands. Mickey, the great detective that he is, remains completely oblivious to his shortcomings on this front.
When our Italian-eating antagonist is finally caught and cross-examined, his lawyer has him dress like a Boy Scout to appear innocent. This only complicates things further when he’s granted bail and his buffet-style rampage continues, and becomes smitten with Cheryl.
This Shouldn’t Be A Movie
The above scenarios are stretched to absurdity in Eat and Run, repeating the same bits over and over, escalating just enough each time until the film reaches its climax. It reminds me of most SNL-based movies that do the exact same thing. Think 1994’s It’s Pat, but instead of endless jokes about androgyny, it’s about a fat guy eating mobsters.
While it sounds like I hated Eat and Run, I actually had a good time with it. At 85 minutes, it feels like writer-director Christopher Hart was padding the runtime to reach feature length by overworking the gags, but I can’t help but wonder how much better it would be if trimmed down to sitcom-episode length, or even a series of recurring skits.
I’ve always been a sucker for neo-noir narration, so every time Mickey narrates, only for the camera to pull back and reveal he’s been talking out loud in a room full of people, I let out a hearty chuckle. It’s stupid, but relatable. The number of times I think I’m thinking to myself while puttering around the house, only for my family to ask what the hell I’m talking about, is high enough that I felt seen.
Eat and Run is totally stupid, built on a razor-thin premise, and runs its gags into the ground before the first act is over. It’s also really funny, not because those things make it funny on their own, but because the humor somehow loops back around and works anyway.
As of this writing, Eat and Run is streaming for free on Tubi.
Cincinnati tallies twice in closing minutes, earns draw vs. NYCFC
AI Overviews are coming to your Gmail at work
