No Convention Bounce

[Hulkein]

So much for the hand full of aces, eh Backlash?

Seems the American publics wasn't swayed in the least bit by Kerry's AMAZING SPEECH (Yeah, it was amazing Kefka, cleary :) Bush actually may have received a bounce from the democratic national convention, lol.

--------

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the Democratic convention in Boston, finds that the presidential race remains close, with President George W. Bush receiving 50% support among likely voters, and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry 47%. Among the larger group of registered voters, Kerry leads 50% to 47%.

Compared with the last CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey conducted before the convention (July 19-21), this post-convention poll shows that among likely voters, Kerry's support is actually two points lower than it was pre-convention, while Bush's support is three points higher. Among registered voters, Kerry's support in the current poll is one point higher than it was pre-convention, while Bush's support is also higher, by two points (the percentage of undecideds dropped in both groups).

For neither group of voters does the slight change in voter preferences, compared with a poll conducted shortly before the convention, favor Kerry. All of these changes are within the margin of error, meaning that we cannot be 95% certain that Bush gained on Kerry after the convention. However, clearly there is no convention bounce for Kerry.

Likely voters :

-Pre-Convention-
2004 Jul 19-21-

Kerry/Edwards - 49%
Bush/Cheney - 47%

-Post-Convention
2004 Jul 30-31-

Kerry/Edwards - 47%
Bush/Cheney - 50%

[Drew2]

I saw a report on CNN about this.

They said that the Democrats were already rallied to vote, etc. Kerry's speach just made the Republicans more rallied to vote (BECAUSE THEY KNOW HE'S RIGHT AND THEY HATE IT, OK. THAT'S THE REAL TRUTH.), hence the increase in numbers. It has nothing to do with a lack of Democratic support.

[Parkbandit]

I just don't think there are very many people who will be swayed either way. I'll be wrong if Bush is up by 10 points after the Republican Convention.

The election will be close as long as nothing happens to either camp.

[Hulkein]

Yeah, that's true. He still had a chance of moving some swing voters though. Doesn't look like that happened.

They said that could be due to the fact that there are only half as many swing voters now as in 2000 since the race is so intense. They also mentioned the fact that the primetime viewing of the convention was down so only three hours total over the four days were aired on the three major television channels.

Edited to change years.

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Hulkein]

[Wezas]

I think the election will be just like the last one. Too close to call early. *Unless* there's an attack on america (or enough of a scare) - which will likely lean in Bush's favor.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas
I think the election will be just like the last one. Too close to call early. *Unless* there's an attack on america (or enough of a scare) - which will likely lean in Bush's favor.

I think it could go either way with that... look what happened in Spain.

[Back]

Here is the rest of that article. (http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12565)

Why didn't he sway the undecideds? Who knows. Maybe even because they want to wait to hear what the Republics come up with at their convention. Who knows. Not being undecided, I can't say, but I will say his speech made me more certain that he is the person I'd rather see in the White House.

That particular poll compares "likely" to "registered" to see where the undecideds fall. Though it dosen't show much improvement in the "likely" category, it shows a definite improvement in the "registered" category, which oddly enough I fall under.

But the margin of error has always tripped me out. 3-4% is a lot of error. And they are only 95% certain that the margin of error is 3%? There is a 5% chance the error could be? What? 100% off?

Anyway, I found this article to be encouraging actually.

[Hulkein]

Well, by reading the rest of the article you'll see that Bush still actually got a 1% gain in the registered category also. Kerry gained 1 percentage point while Bush gain 2 percentage points.

Fact is the convention did nothing, which cannot be a good sign for someone trying to oust an incumbent.

Here is the big picture of the polls so far. Bush is ahead when all choices are available.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/dawkins/poll.jpg

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Hulkein]

[Tsa`ah]

Did nothing in within the polled section.

I'm sorry, but there are more than a few thousand people in the US.

Polls are terribly inaccurate and should be illegal during election seasons.

[Hulkein]

lol, ok.

[GSTamral]

Personally, I think after the Republican Convention, we'll see a small to moderate swing in Bush's favor. The issue at hand is simply that the election is so polarized, that the number of swing voters is minimal. I'd expect the 50-46 gap to become perhaps in the 52-44 or 53-43 range post republican convention.

Kerry failed to inspire because his speechwriter was terrible, and his delivery was worse than Al Gore's.

I'd honestly love to see a president or candidate go up on stage and actually deliver to us the bad news. Things such as:

1) We are in a recession. This is how I plan on getting us out of it.
2) We do not have enough oil or coal to generate the electricity to meet the demands of the country. All LEGITIMATE research has made it evidently clear that Nuclear Power is the safest and most reliable option. (Yes I know, there are STILL shitheaded idiots out there who assume meltdown and blah blah because they are too stupid and ignorant to know otherwise, such as the fact that most of our navy runs on multiple nuclear plants within 100 meter proximity of people).
3) We have a big trade deficit, and are losing jobs to foreign countries. We need to review union laws and how they are crippling maufacturing industries in this country, so we can save more jobs from moving overseas.

Things like that, while on the surface frightening, would go a long way towards actually addressing issues at hand. The Clinton guided recession has been in place since November of 1999 (first Quarterly GDP growth under 4% since the early 80's), and it has shown absolutely no sign whatsoever of going away.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Polls are terribly inaccurate and should be illegal during election seasons. >>

Polling opinions from people, I agree, are terribly inaccurate. But I trust statistics that don't rely on the incredibly flimsy nature of public opinion.

During the Canadian election every single news source was convinced that the Liberal Party of Canada was in for failure and that we were going to see a Conservative Prime Minister.

The polling showed that result for slightly less than a month and even up to and including the weekend before the election. The Liberal Party was admittedly very worried about the polls... the result? The statistians were entirely wrong and the Liberal Party ended up winning.

Opinion polls suffer from many reasons that include mostly selection effects, but also the fact that many people will hold one opinion then change their opinion or not really understand what their opinion is so that when you ask them the same fundamental question but in a different way, you get a contradictory result.

Put simply, conventions have never made or broken people's opinions. Just like when a candidate picks a running mate, they may get a slight bump in the polls for a momentary period of time and then the bump goes away.

Sometimes having a poor convention is the result of the candidate running a poor campaign in general, but it would be a logical fallacy to state that the convention itself was the cause for the poor campaign or that the convention itself was responsible for anything.

[Back]

Originally posted by Kranar
During the Canadian election every single news source was convinced that the Liberal Party of Canada was in for failure and that we were going to see a Conservative Prime Minister.

That wouldn't happen to be because Rupert Murdock pwns most of the media in Canada, would it?

[Betheny]

Hey Hulkein, wtf is your obsession with gallup polls?

[imported_Kranar]

<< That wouldn't happen to be because Rupert Murdock pwns most of the media in Canada, would it? >>

You should have seen the faces of the people at the CBC (government owned) while the election results were coming in. They couldn't believe it either.

When it was clear that the Liberal's won, the entire discussion was about trying to find excuses and reasons as to why the statisticians made such an error.

So yeah, polling people about their opinion is entirely irrelevent, especially at this point. Attempting to even remotely determine how this election will play out based on a convention meant simply to rally a political party together and formally announce their nominee is a waste of time. The same will go for the Republican convention.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Maimara
Hey Hulkein, wtf is your obsession with gallup polls?

They're otherwise known as CNN/USA Today polls and they're the most accurate and non-biased.

[Betheny]

You said that in some thread like 3 months ago and everyone jumped on your ass and proved you wrong.

[Prestius]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=afteFMJlqdV4&refer=us

Interesting. I guess it all depends on the pollster.

Truth is, any poll which reports on "likely voters" should be considered suspect since the method for choosing the sample space is more art than science and differs from pollster to pollster.

-P

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Maimara
You said that in some thread like 3 months ago and everyone jumped on your ass and proved you wrong.

No they didn't, they said the same thing that can be said with any poll, they're not 100% accurate.

OK?

Just because some people from the players corner forum don't believe they are good enough doesn't mean that the people with masters degrees in statistics are wrong. People wouldn't spend millions of dollars in polling a year if it didn't mean anything.

[Betheny]

Yeah, you did.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=4853&page=6

I am so smart, S M R T

[Hulkein]

.....

I said, 'no, they didn't prove me wrong.'

I never said that the conversation never took place.

My main point, - Just because some people from the players corner forum don't believe they are good enough doesn't mean that the people with masters degrees in statistics are wrong. People wouldn't spend millions of dollars in polling a year if it didn't mean anything. - is still true.

[Hulkein]

Just as an addon.

I never said this is the EXACT representation of the nation, but barring an undertaking matching that of a census every 10 years, you're not going to get any better then a Gallup poll.

Take it with a grain of salt, it is meant to be taken that way, but it still provides a pretty good insight as to the current feelings of the nation.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Just because some people from the players corner forum don't believe they are good enough doesn't mean that the people with masters degrees in statistics are wrong. >>

Ah... the classical fallacy of appealing to authority. One of the most desperate and last resort attempts at making an argument.

Unfortunately, just because some people from the Players' Corner forum believe that polls are good enough doesn't mean that people with Masters degrees and PhDs in statistics are wrong.

Yes, there is controvesy even amongst the highest educated on the relevence of public opinion polls. Your appeal to authority fails in this argument.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Take it with a grain of salt, it is meant to be taken that way, but it still provides a pretty good insight as to the current feelings of the nation. >>

Taking something with a grain of salt contradicts the statement that it provides a pretty good insight to the feelings of the nation.

Something that provides a pretty good insight into anything, generally, is not something to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Betheny]

:birdshit:

pwned.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Kranar
Ah... the classical fallacy of appealing to authority.

Says the man who commits the fallacy of Composition by pointing out one election in Canada where one polling site incorrectly stated the results of the upcoming election, thus discrediting all future polls.



Originally posted by Kranar
Taking something with a grain of salt contradicts the statement that it provides a pretty good insight to the feelings of the nation.

Something that provides a pretty good insight into anything, generally, is not something to be taken with a grain of salt.


Do you believe the local weather stations provide a 'pretty good insight' as to what the weather may be down the road?

Now do you also believe, many times, one should take what they say with a grain of salt?

If your answer to each is yes, then I feel I have debunked your prior statement.



Originally posted by Maimara
:birdshit:
pwned.

Your input to this thread is invaluable.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Hulkein]

[Back]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Personally, I think after the Republican Convention, we'll see a small to moderate swing in Bush's favor. The issue at hand is simply that the election is so polarized, that the number of swing voters is minimal. I'd expect the 50-46 gap to become perhaps in the 52-44 or 53-43 range post republican convention.

Kerry failed to inspire because his speechwriter was terrible, and his delivery was worse than Al Gore's.

I'd honestly love to see a president or candidate go up on stage and actually deliver to us the bad news. Things such as:

1) We are in a recession. This is how I plan on getting us out of it.
2) We do not have enough oil or coal to generate the electricity to meet the demands of the country. All LEGITIMATE research has made it evidently clear that Nuclear Power is the safest and most reliable option. (Yes I know, there are STILL shitheaded idiots out there who assume meltdown and blah blah because they are too stupid and ignorant to know otherwise, such as the fact that most of our navy runs on multiple nuclear plants within 100 meter proximity of people).
3) We have a big trade deficit, and are losing jobs to foreign countries. We need to review union laws and how they are crippling maufacturing industries in this country, so we can save more jobs from moving overseas.

Things like that, while on the surface frightening, would go a long way towards actually addressing issues at hand. The Clinton guided recession has been in place since November of 1999 (first Quarterly GDP growth under 4% since the early 80's), and it has shown absolutely no sign whatsoever of going away.

I'm guessing you didn't actually see and hear the speech because all those concerns you listed were adressed. Maybe not in the detail we would all like to have understood, but adressed none the less.

Transcript and video available here. (http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125934&ct=158807)

[imported_Kranar]

<< Do you believe the local weather stations provide a 'pretty good insight'? >>

Yes.

<< Now do you also believe, many times, one should take what they say with a grain of salt? >>

No.

If the weather report says it will rain, then I will bring an umbrella with me, if it says that there will be sunshine, then I will not bring an umbrella with me.

Are you telling me you take the weather report with a grain of salt? Are you telling me that if the weather report says that it will be sunny tomorrow... you may still decide to bring an umbrella with you since the report is just something to take with a grain of salt?

<< Says the man who commits the fallacy of Composition by pointing out one election in Canada where one polling site incorrectly stated the results of the upcoming election, thus discrediting all further future polls. >>

I never did that. I stated the reasons why polling this convention is irrelevent and those reasons were independent of anything to do with the election results in Canada.

Here you go:



Opinion polls suffer from many reasons that include mostly selection effects, but also the fact that many people will hold one opinion then change their opinion or not really understand what their opinion is so that when you ask them the same fundamental question but in a different way, you get a contradictory result.

Put simply, conventions have never made or broken people's opinions. Just like when a candidate picks a running mate, they may get a slight bump in the polls for a momentary period of time and then the bump goes away.

Sometimes having a poor convention is the result of the candidate running a poor campaign in general, but it would be a logical fallacy to state that the convention itself was the cause for the poor campaign or that the convention itself was responsible for anything.

[DeV]

Also, I would never trust the accuracy of a political poll, let alone one I have never been polled for myself. People are too easily swayed.

[Hulkein]

<<No.

If the weather report says it will rain, then I will bring an umbrella with me, if it says that there will be sunshine, then I will not bring an umbrella with me.

Are you telling me you take the weather report with a grain of salt? Are you telling me that if the weather report says that it will be sunny tomorrow... you may still decide to bring an umbrella with you since the report is just something to take with a grain of salt? >>

I think it is safe to say you are in the minority.

Weathermen are notorious for making mistakes. Quite often they make the claim for feet of snow here, yet the temperature never drops enough, and we get slush as opposed to 20 inches.

Quite often the weatherman will predict rain all day, yet I will call for a tee-time for golf anyway, and low and behold, it never rains.

That is what I call taking the weatherman's advice with a grain of salt.

Take a look at the statistics for how often the weather predictions are correct for an entire year, I can assure you they are not even close to 100%.


<<Opinion polls suffer from many reasons that include mostly selection effects>>

Which is why they have a statistical margin of error. Isn't that what it takes into account?


<<but also the fact that many people will hold one opinion then change their opinion >>

Correct, that is why a poll (especially regarding an election) is only worth anything for the few days after it is taken. That is also why a new poll is taken every week or so.

<<or not really understand what their opinion is so that when you ask them the same fundamental question but in a different way, you get a contradictory result>>

While this rings especially true for many variety's of opinion polls, a question posed such as this 'If the election were today, would you vote for George Bush or John Kerry' is not likely to cause a contradictory result.


[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Hulkein]

[imported_Kranar]

<< Which is why they have a statistical margin of error. Isn't that what it takes into account? >>

Nope, margin of error is dependent on one factor and one factor alone... number of people polled.

<< Correct, that is why a poll is (especially regarding an election) is only worth anything for the few days after it is taken. That is also why a new poll is taken every week or so. >>

So you agree then that it's worthless? My argument is simply that trying to decide the outcome of this election at this point based on public opinion polls is irrelevent, and that just because the Democratic National Convention took place last week doesn't make this poll anymore relevent than the polls taken when John Kerry picked John Edwards as a running mate.

[imported_Kranar]

<< While this rings especially true for many variety's of opinion polls, a question posed such as this 'If the election were today, would you vote for George Bush or John Kerry' is not likely to cause a contradictory result. >>

Hulkein, if I gave you only 2 seconds to pick between left and right, which would you pick?

The above question is only a semi-exageratted form of the question posed in the poll.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Kranar]

[Hulkein]

<<Nope, margin of error is dependent on one factor and one factor alone... number of people polled.>>

Then why does it say
"one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±2 percentage points. For any individual sample, the margin of error is ±3 percentage points."

It mentions the sampling and other random effects right there... Isn't that the same as what you said, "suffer from many reasons that include mostly selection effects"?


<<So you agree then that it's worthless? My argument is simply that trying to decide the outcome of this election at this point based on public opinion polls is irrelevent, and that just because the Democratic National Convention took place last week doesn't make this poll anymore relevent than the polls taken when John Kerry picked John Edwards as a running mate.>>

I think we picked up on where exactly we were disagreeing.

I wholeheartedly agree that this poll is somewhat worthless come November second. I just look at the polls weekly because I feel it gives an accurate portrayal of how everyone feels right now and tell you the truth that's what I'm interested in.

Hell, I'd read horoscopes or go to a psychic if I was looking for some sort of prediction come November second. Anything can change it from a terrorist attack to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Hulkein]

[imported_Kranar]

<< It mentions the sampling and other random effects right there... Isn't that the same as what you said, "suffer from many reasons that include mostly selection effects"? >>

No because the confidence level is strictly a measurement of the experiment itself. All the confidence level says is, if you were to conduct this exact same experiment over and over, you would arrive at these results 95 percent of the time with a +/- 2 percent margin of error.

Selection effects and other statistical problems involve flaws with the experiment itself.

For example... let's say I had some faulty experiment that concluded that 20 percent of Americans would go right, and 80 percent of Americans would go left if forced to choose between the two within 2 seconds with a 5 percent margin of error when in reality it's 50/50. Obviously there is a problem with the experiment itself, the confidence level merely asserts that if you were to repeat the experiment as is, keeping in mind that there is an error in the experiment, you would get a result between 15-25 of Americans going right, and 75-85 percent of Americans going left, 95 percent of the time.

Selection effects and the other problems I stated are problems with the experiment itself. All the margin of error along with the confidence level tells you is that if you agree with the method behind the experiment, then you will arrive at results within a certain margin of error 90-95 percent of time.

The point I'm making along with others is that we don't believe in the experiment itself. That the experiment itself is flawed because you simply can not phone someone up and ask them to answer a question in 1-2 minutes on an issue that they have 4 months to think about. You honestly may as well ask them to pick between going left, or going right.

[imported_Kranar]

<< I just look at the polls weekly because I feel it gives an accurate portrayal of how everyone feels right now and tell you the truth that's what I'm interested in. >>

Come election day... maybe... MAYBE... 45 percent of Americans will care about this election. Do you really think that 4 months before this election even 25-30 percent of Americans care?

Given that statement... are you still convinced that any portrayal of how "everyone feels right now" is accurate?

[GSTamral]

Kranar, your thoughts on the matter, while there is some truth, is as equally conjectured as someone who blindly follows statistics. That you choose to hold an inherent distrust for them is one thing, but to make comparisons insinuating that the people running them are not paying attention to demographics is a bit absurd. Give them more credit than that.

Many companies pay a great deal of money every year for statisticians. To basically call their profession out as inaccurate is a bit of a slap in the face. You should perhaps be better served to learn and understand such statistics before accusing them of inaccuracies.

In a very famous story with UPS, a low level manager was spotted one day by the founder, Jim Casey, his nerves literally gripping his stomach tight. The man was extremely nervous because he had to speak to the owner and president of a very large corporation in New York, and he was feeling intimidated.

Jim Casey's singular response
"Just remember. You know more about your business than he does, just as he knows more about his business than you do".


When Hulkein reverts trust into the people running the statistics, believe me, they know a whole hell of a lot more about statistical accuracy and p and f chart confidence levels than you do. They also know how to conduct such polling via demographic selection. Will they be 100% accurate? probably not. Will they be relatively accurate? Yes, they will.

It is very easy to simply naysay because you said so, or point out singular cases where there have been errors. Unless an entire population is sampled, there is always going to be a level of uncertainty. That does not however, mean that there is a flaw in the system, simply that there is a small chance of flaw built into the equation.

[Hulkein]

Interesting. Thanks for explaining the selection effects.

<<That the experiment itself is flawed because you simply can not phone someone up and ask them to answer a question in 1-2 minutes on an issue that they have 4 months to think about. You honestly may as well ask them to pick between going left, or going right.>>

I'll still have to disagree here. It is quite obvious that so many Americans (moreso then ever) are staunchly supporting one candidate or the other and there is an EXTREMELY low number of undecided votes. That being said I also say it is worthwhile to poll weekly to see the nations sentiments on the given week. Not to try and forecast what will happen November Second, but to simply see what would happen if the election was done today.

[GSTamral]

Actually, to go a step further, more than 70% of Americans who vote have made their decision before the candidates are even selected. By the end of August, more than 95% are set in their ways. I'd say a vote right now, even a poll, does present a legitimate means to ESTIMATE how things are going.

[imported_Kranar]

Appeal to authority fails in this argument GSTamral.

You can not simply point to the fact that millions of dollars are spent gathering information and then say "Case closed."

There are professionals on both sides of the issue with education that far exceeds mine, yours, and Hulkein's put together multiplied by a thousand. Thus it does not suffice to simply say:

Hey... I know this guy who knows way more than you and his existence alone is enough to prove you wrong.

[GSTamral]

Randomly pick out 3,000 names from a phone book. Conduct a poll asking them if they prefer beef or chicken.

99.57% of the time, the results you get will be within 2% of the actual results you would acheive sampling the entire population in the phone book.

[imported_Kranar]

Well by your own statistic then, any poll taken right now, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your statistic is entirely accurate, will only represent 31.5 percent of America.

That is a far cry from understanding how your country feels.

[GSTamral]

Who ever said case closed? I simply said it provides an accurate ESTIMATE.

It is no more an appeal to authority to put trust in the professionals as it is an appeal to authority to trust a carpenter to do your floor over a pizza delivery boy. You miss the principle here.

[GSTamral]

Kranar, that was only an example to use. The people conducting the polls have a lot more of a population base to sample than the phone book.

And now you're being just silly, using an example to re-represent a completely different situation.

[imported_Kranar]

<< And now you're being just silly, using an example to re-represent a completely different situation. >>

I was refering to Hulkein.

Hulkein claims that polls right now give a good estimate of how America feels.

He claims that at this point, 70 percent of Americans have made up their mind.

70 percent of America * 45 percent of people who vote = 31.5 percent

Thus, any poll taken right now, assuming that Hulkein is entirely correct, is only representative of 31.5 percent of the U.S.

As I said, that is a far cry from understanding how America feels, but it's what a lot of people fall for when they trust these polls, and it's what a lot of people use to base their opinions.

[longshot]

Hulkein, I understand your attempt to pick up Edine's slack, and not let the flag of retardedness touch the ground in battle...

But, I'm a bit queasy from the burning flesh emminating from your charred torso. Kranar does make some good barbeque:tumble:

Anyways, you are at a critical point here...

You can redeem yourself by saying something to the effect that, "There are things that I don't know. Thank you for pointing them out Kranar"...

Or, you can take the "Edine Doctrine", and scream that the world is flat, and watch the few people here who had any intellectual respect left for you (and there aren't many) dissapear.

[Hulkein]

<<He claims that at this point, 70 percent of Americans have made up their mind.>>

I never said they have made up their mind to the point that it cannot change. I openly said that there are a number of outside occurences that can change a persons opinion. I simply said that the polls are a representation of what they feel at this point in time.

<<You can redeem yourself by saying something to the effect that, "There are things that I don't know. Thank you for pointing them out Kranar"...>>

I have already thanked him for supplying me with information I didn't know. Ok?

There are plenty of things I don't know, I only know what I have been taught or what I have read on my own. From what I have read on my own, the polling done by Gallup or any other reputable agency is statistically significant enough to put some credence into it. Enough credence that it is used to analyze how campaigns are going, how conventions performed, and many other factors throughout the campaign trail.

I never said it was a mirror of what would happen election day.

Now since you took the time to insult me can you also take the time to point out anything in particular that I said in which you find illogical or terribly offbased?

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Hulkein]

[imported_Kranar]

<< I never said they have made up their mind to the point that it cannot change. I openly said that there are a number of outside occurences that can change a persons opinion. I simply said that the polls are a representation of what they feel at this point in time. >>

I know, but I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's say that they have made up their mind to the point where it will not change, let's say that your statistics are 100 percent fully accurate and that some incredible Godly machine was invented that can read minds and determine precisely how people feel.

You would still only know how 31.5 percent of your country feels. In other words, the insight that you say you're interested in, and being sympathetic to your point of view I can understand why you'd be interested in it, I say that sincerely, you would only know less than a third of how your country feels.

That to me just isn't anything worthwhile.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Many companies pay a great deal of money every year for statisticians. To basically call their profession out as inaccurate is a bit of a slap in the face. You should perhaps be better served to learn and understand such statistics before accusing them of inaccuracies.

Most of these companies don't use marketing/media firms to do so either. When a corporation needs statistics they normally create/defer to internal departments for that specific purpose or contract various analytical firms and compare the differing reports.

Case in point ... Last year it was my job to audit 5 separate reports and merge the critical stats into one report for presentation. The firms we contracted were to survey customers and compile hard data concerning defects and rejected product. 5 firms, no less than 20% variance from one report to the next. Each firm was given an exact copy of specific criteria work from, each gave drastically different results.

Normal variation at the old job, between firms, ran about 6%.

Although specific parameters were followed, different results can occur. Chances are the parameters were not followed specifically, or there was an issue with the spec.

Political polls are conducted by politically driven sources, even in the media. I can take the parameters for one poll and give you drastically different results just by changing the areas I am calling. And that is the key to a political poll, the sampling and region.

What other reason would polling firms have to not show the parameters of the poll?

Do you honestly think you can call up 10,000 people at Berkeley and not get a liberal slanted result?

Polls are biased and poorly conducted. Polls generally only help a political party measure how well a campaign is working and help "those who hate to lose" choose who to vote for.

Sadly there are plenty of voters in the country who will mark their ballot with the person they feel is going to win.

Since some feel that political polls are so accurate I would like to know ... Of the posters on this board, who has been contacted for a presidential election poll?

I'm coming up on my fourth election where I am eligible to vote, I have never been polled.

No one in my immediate family has ever been polled.

What are the chances of not being polled if the sampling is so variable?

[Hulkein]

Sorry I got a little off-track, I'll just respond to a few more things Kranar.

<<Are you telling me you take the weather report with a grain of salt? Are you telling me that if the weather report says that it will be sunny tomorrow... you may still decide to bring an umbrella with you since the report is just something to take with a grain of salt?>>

Take your one example and reverse it.

Suppose the weather report says that it will be sunny tomorrow and you you look outside the next day and it looks as if it may rain. While the weatherman said it was not going to rain, it certainly appears as if it may, so I'll grab my umbrella (If I used an umbrella =)

That would be taking a weather report with a grain of salt.

<<You would still only know how 31.5 percent of your country feels. In other words, the insight that you say you're interested in, and being sympathetic to your point of view I can understand why you'd be interested in it, I say that sincerely, you would only know less than a third of how your country feels.

That to me just isn't anything worthwhile.>>

The thing about that 31.5 percent is that the way the polling is done, that 31.5 percent is supposed to be fairly indicative of what the rest of the population also thinks.

That 31.5 percent isn't simply every resident of Texas equalling 31.5 percent of the country (for percentage sake, let's pretend that many live there). It's a poll of say 100 people from an urban area of PA, 100 people from a rural area of PA, 100 people from a urban part of NY, 100 people from a rural part of NY, and so on.

There gets to be a point in statistical polling that the principle of diminishing returns kicks in greatly. The reasons for this are obvious, eventually there is a statistically predictable amount of people who will agree with someone polled.



I have to say that you and others have opened my eyes as to why I can't take it as Scripture, but I still maintain my original assertion that it is good for what it is used for - day to day analyzation.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Hulkein]

[imported_Kranar]

Fair enough points made.

I suppose we can agree to disagree at this point.

On another note, how do you think that this will compare with the Republican Convention? Do you think that the convention should or will be used as a part of the campaign or that it should focus simply on uniting Republican's together?

If you see this Convention as either a failure or a dissapointment, do you think the Republican Convention will be any different or will give a boost to the party?

[Hulkein]

I didn't see the Democratic Convention as a failure... I mainly posted that info because Backlash and Kefka were praising how wonderful it was. I was just showing information that perhaps everyone else was not as woo'd as they were. I see it more as a mistake free but nothing overwhelmingly good type of event.

I think that Bush will get a bounce (a small one) mainly because he will do a good job of making the country remember all that we have overcome under his leadership. Pointing to the way we rallied back after 9/11, how the economy is up after the bubble burst and the terrorist attack. I believe he'll then go on to outline his plan on what will occur during the next four years under his leadership. His leadership will most certainly be connected with adjectives like strong, determined, gutsy, etc.

[Latrinsorm]

If I were him, I'd have someone throw a football to me.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If I were him, I'd have someone throw a football to me.

Kind of risky to steal a democratic schtick. Worked for Clinton because he was a bit athletic, Dubya just cheered on a losing team.

He'd probably choke on it or get blasted in the face and cry like a little bitch, then run to dad or Cheney.

[Latrinsorm]

He'd have to be a real cheerleader (no offense ladies) to botch the catch as badly as that Kerry pic.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
He'd have to be a real cheerleader (no offense ladies) to botch the catch as badly as that Kerry pic.

Kerry is a douche and a pansy .... not unlike the rival, who really was a cheer leader.

[Electrawn]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/kerry_bounce_poll_040802.html




A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Kerry's gain is smaller than usual for a convention bounce, testament to the unusually polarized race, with many voters committing early to each candidate. Still, it comes at a crucial time for the Democratic candidate, countering a loss of momentum leading up to his convention.


There are no clueless masses looking for a tent to join - the tents are full. The election is about Bush, either a vote for or against.

You can substitute Kerry for Gephart, Edwards, Dean, Graham or some other Democrat and probably end up with the same poll results.

-Electrawn

[longshot]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Now since you took the time to insult me can you also take the time to point out anything in particular that I said in which you find illogical or terribly offbased?



Okay.


Originally posted by Hulkein
.....

I said, 'no, they didn't prove me wrong.'

I never said that the conversation never took place.

My main point, - Just because some people from the players corner forum don't believe they are good enough doesn't mean that the people with masters degrees in statistics are wrong. People wouldn't spend millions of dollars in polling a year if it didn't mean anything. - is still true.

Kranar already pointed out the appeal to authority, but there's more.

This is the same bullshit cheerleading act that Edine did.

Take any small, insignificant Repulbican acheivement or democrat shortcoming, and turn it into a thread so you can feel better about believing in your cause. Even if it's not based on anything close to sound evidence or significant meaning.

So, this thread, much like many of Edine's threads, are based on very shitty evidence.
The only reason you would post this is...?

To fill the void left by the other highly uneducated and highly opinionated right wing poster?

To reassure yourself that Kerry is a douchebag?

I think it's a little of both.

That's what I was getting at.

I didn't mean to be insulting, but I think Kranar's line of reasoning in the argument, and his knowledge of mathematics makes him far more credible.

I didn't mean to be insulting, but the machine gun replys reminded me of our neophyte in training, and his posting style.

Don't be that guy.

[Hulkein]

<<Kranar already pointed out the appeal to authority, but there's more.>>

Ok? The appeal to authority may be a harmful fallacy when used the wrong way, but I don't believe it is always bad when it comes to some sort of science. I'll openly admit I concede to the knowledge of statisticians. It's not as if I was appealing to an authority which doesn't actually have any knowledge in the field.

<<To fill the void left by the other highly uneducated and highly opinionated right wing poster?

To reassure yourself that Kerry is a douchebag?>>

Heh, I said why I posted it. I was annoyed at how the second Kerry's speech ended a few people were praising it as if it were amazing. It was a fine speech, but please, let's save the dramatics. If you want proof of this read the posts that were made right after the speech.

<<This is the same bullshit cheerleading act that Edine did.

Take any small, insignificant Repulbican acheivement or democrat shortcoming, and turn it into a thread so you can feel better about believing in your cause. Even if it's not based on anything close to sound evidence or significant meaning.>>

Shitty evidence? If you've been watching CNN or FoxNews it's been a rather talked about subject using the exact evidence I gave here. I personally feel it does have somewhat significant meaning when the last democratic bounce received was somewhere in the 10 points range.


<<I didn't mean to be insulting, but the machine gun replys reminded me of our neophyte in training, and his posting style>>

Ok, I tried to keep the machine gunning down to a minimum. I was simply debating at the same rate as Kranar.

Second, please don't insult me by linking our posting styles together. I have never been one who won't admit he's wrong. I also know how to spell cumbersome words such as RESPONSE :D (his MO is to throw a nice C in there) and ... I don't remember off the top of my head, but whatever.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Hulkein]

[Betheny]

unless they sample a few hundred people in every region of the united states, of every financial background, and of every ethnic background, polls are bullshit.

They don't.

Can't argue with that. BTW, Hulkein, my input on this thread is far more interesting than any input you bring to any thread, you brain dead bastard.

[Kefka]

Gone for a day and a topic sneaks up on you.

Ran across this little tidbit today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5581227/

"The poll showed Kerry with the support of 50 percent of all registered voters, compared with 44 percent for Bush, with independent Ralph Nader at 2 percent. On the eve of the convention, Bush led Kerry 48 percent to 46 percent."


Now let me say now that I'm not one to follow polls. Stopped believing in them since the 2000 Selection. The same polls that had Bush with double digit leads over Gore. Nowadays, I follow the terror alerts to weigh on if Bush is gaining or losing ground. They seem to coincide with Bush's numbers going down.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Maimara
unless they sample a few hundred people in every region of the united states, of every financial background, and of every ethnic background, polls are bullshit.

I wouldn't call them bullshit. Part of the statistical probability is that they cover as close to every range of person in the country as possible if selected properly.

We already debated every point of polling, sure it is wrong some times, but using it as a day to day barometer they can be useful.

Now on to the more entertaining part.

<<Hulkein, .... you brain dead bastard.>>

It's really easy to say that Maimara, yet in one of your three posts in this thread you exhibited your lack of reading comprehension by believing that I said something I didn't.

----

Originally posted by Maimara
You said that in some thread like 3 months ago and everyone jumped on your ass and proved you wrong.


Originally posted by Hulkein
No they didn't


Originally posted by Maimara
Yeah, you did.
I am so smart, S M R T
----

With the overwhelming task of discerning which of two subjects I was denying, either the 'you posted' or the 'they proved you wrong', you failed. I know it was a bloviated what with it being three words but I was hoping you'd be able to handle it.

If you want to debate anything I've said go ahead. Otherwise there's no need for the blanket insults. I'm not Edine and I don't go around posting six pages of something googled and expect respect, so call me out on something I say that is off-base, that's perfectly fine with me.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Hulkein]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Electrawn
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/kerry_bounce_poll_040802.html




A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Kerry's gain is smaller than usual for a convention bounce, testament to the unusually polarized race, with many voters committing early to each candidate. Still, it comes at a crucial time for the Democratic candidate, countering a loss of momentum leading up to his convention.


There are no clueless masses looking for a tent to join - the tents are full. The election is about Bush, either a vote for or against.

You can substitute Kerry for Gephart, Edwards, Dean, Graham or some other Democrat and probably end up with the same poll results.

-Electrawn

I can make stats tell whatever story I wish them to tell. Fact remains that this is the first time in almost 4 decades of Presidential elections that the bounce was negative.

To me, Kerry blew a golden opportunity. And I don't think it's because he's a Democrat.. it's because he is not a good candidate for President. He is so liberal that he has no chance of bringing in many moderates to vote for him. The Democrats blew their chance of regaining the White House when they voted for him and not voting for someone like Liberman or Graham, who are considered moderates.

[Latrinsorm]

Lieberman v. Bush would be interesting, if it didn't dissolve into Hebrew v. Baptist.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Maimara
unless they sample a few hundred people in every region of the united states, of every financial background, and of every ethnic background, polls are bullshit.

I wouldn't call them bullshit. Part of the statistical probability is that they cover as close to every range of person in the country as possible if selected properly.

We already debated every point of polling, sure it is wrong some times, but using it as a day to day barometer they can be useful.

Now on to the more entertaining part.

<<Hulkein, .... you brain dead bastard.>>

It's really easy to say that Maimara, yet in one of your three posts in this thread you exhibited your lack of reading comprehension by believing that I said something I didn't.

----

Originally posted by Maimara
You said that in some thread like 3 months ago and everyone jumped on your ass and proved you wrong.


Originally posted by Hulkein
No they didn't


Originally posted by Maimara
Yeah, you did.
I am so smart, S M R T
----

With the overwhelming task of discerning which of two subjects I was denying, either the 'you posted' or the 'they proved you wrong', you failed. I know it was a bloviated what with it being three words but I was hoping you'd be able to handle it.

If you want to debate anything I've said go ahead. Otherwise there's no need for the blanket insults. I'm not Edine and I don't go around posting six pages of something googled and expect respect, so call me out on something I say that is off-base, that's perfectly fine with me.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Hulkein]

I'd read this, but all it says is BLAH BLAH I AM FUCKING STUPID HAR DE HAR HAR HUH HUH

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Lieberman v. Bush would be interesting, if it didn't dissolve into Hebrew v. Baptist. I agree. Lieberman is definitely someone Democrats could find trustworthy among other things. There is just something about Kerry that isn't right. However, he's all the Demo's have at the moment. I'm still undecided because of him. :(

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Maimara
I'd read this, but all it says is BLAH BLAH I AM FUCKING STUPID HAR DE HAR HAR HUH HUH

:rofl:

:baby:

[Betheny]

That's the whole point, dumb ass.

A laugh.

That and you're wrong.

If a gallup poll decided that Jews should be burned at the stake and eaten in canned chili, you'd be all for it.

[Kefka]

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=850

Senator Kerry Retains A Lead Through His Convention, New Zogby Interactive Presidential Battleground Poll Reveals

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry remains solidly in the lead after a week in which his party and candidacy grabbed the political spotlight at their national convention in Boston, a new edition of Zogby Interactive polls in 16 battleground states shows.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Kefka
John Kerry remains solidly in the leadAmazing how other polls show him losing or winning by tiny margins, yet here he's "solidly in the lead".

[Artha]

Senator Kerry Retains A Lead Through His Convention, New Zogby Interactive Presidential Battleground Poll Reveals

Haven't you heard? Polls are completely meaningless.

[Kefka]

Oh I know that. Just thought I'd throw other poll numbers in since this thread was based on a poll. One poll (gallup) has Kerry down. The rest have him up between 5 to 8 points.

[Hulkein]

Well my point was he received no bounce.

CBS' poll says the same thing as the gallup one when it comes to whether or not he got a bounce.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/02/opinion/polls/main633546.shtml

Also the Gallup is CNN/USA Today -(An article as opposed to just the numbers.)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/polls.bounce/

Zogby tends to be the one that is off compared to most of the other big polls. It usually ends up with a little more liberal sided results.

[Back]

I don't see how you posting poll info is going to make me, or anyone else who loved the speech, change their minds.

So basically this is a "Fuck you Backlash and Kefka" thread? Well, fuck you very much, Hulk, but it hasn't changed anything.

[DianaBanana]

All politicians suck. :blah:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
I don't see how you posting poll info is going to make me, or anyone else who loved the speech, change their minds.

So basically this is a "Fuck you Backlash and Kefka" thread? Well, fuck you very much, Hulk, but it hasn't changed anything.

LOVED the speech? Even Democrats are saying it paled in comparison to Clinton and the other guy's.

Loved? You need to take off your blinders man.. there was nothing to LOVE about that speech. He rushed through the thing like he sharted in his pants.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash
I don't see how you posting poll info is going to make me, or anyone else who loved the speech, change their minds.

So basically this is a "Fuck you Backlash and Kefka" thread? Well, fuck you very much, Hulk, but it hasn't changed anything.


No, it was a 'his speech obviously wasn't as good as you made it out to be' thread.'

Sorry your explanation of his speech with the whole 'he was hiding his cards.... he showed them tonite.... ACES' was just too over the top for me, heh.

Actually I probably would've posted it anyway because I was somewhat worried that if he got a large enough bounce it would've been hard for Bush to come back from it. :shrug:

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
I don't see how you posting poll info is going to make me, or anyone else who loved the speech, change their minds.

So basically this is a "Fuck you Backlash and Kefka" thread? Well, fuck you very much, Hulk, but it hasn't changed anything.

LOVED the speech? Even Democrats are saying it paled in comparison to Clinton and the other guy's.

Loved? You need to take off your blinders man.. there was nothing to LOVE about that speech. He rushed through the thing like he sharted in his pants.

Thats your opinion. It dosen't change mine, so go harrass someone else who gives a shit what you think.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Backlash
I don't see how you posting poll info is going to make me, or anyone else who loved the speech, change their minds.

So basically this is a "Fuck you Backlash and Kefka" thread? Well, fuck you very much, Hulk, but it hasn't changed anything.


No, it was a 'his speech obviously wasn't as good as you made it out to be' thread.'

Sorry your explanation of his speech with the whole 'he was hiding his cards.... he showed them tonite.... ACES' was just too over the top for me, heh.

Actually I probably would've posted it anyway because I was somewhat worried that if he got a large enough bounce it would've been hard for Bush to come back from it. :shrug:

On some level I suppose I should feel honored you'd go to such lengths to try and tear down my values. But really? Its boring. A) Because you are not going to change my opinion and B) people have already shown polls that support it.

You guys need to stop believing that if you say it enough, its true.

[Hulkein]

..

What values am I trying to tear down?

I'm laughing at the dramatics you put on after the speech, that's all. I'm not insulting you for voting Kerry.

And no, almost every poll shows that the speech/convention didn't do anything. That's not the same thing as 'most polls show Kerry isn't in the lead.' It has nothing to do with me saying it over and over again.

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Hulkein]

[Back]

A new poll released today proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hulkien is a whiney bitch.

How many people think Hulkien is a whiney bitch?

Poll Results: 100%*

*Poll sampled 1 person. Poll is 100% accurate according to that one person.

[Hulkein]

LOL

Seems you're the one whining here Backlash.

Bottom line is I didn't insult your character, I just laughed at your over-estimation of a speech because of your hatred for the other candidate.

I also love how you use polls to back up your assertions in one post, then poke fun at how they can be pointless.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Backlash
A new poll released today proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hulkien is a whiney bitch.

How many people think Hulkien is a whiney bitch?

Poll Results: 100%*

*Poll sampled 1 person. Poll is 100% accurate according to that one person. :lol: Kinda funny.

[Back]

Ok, whatever, lets just drop it, because you're right, I'm getting whiney. But in my defense, you started this whole thread with my name plastered right in the beginning.

My assessment of the speech is my own.

On the contrary, I believe in polls for what they are. See my last post.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
A new poll released today proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hulkien is a whiney bitch.

How many people think Hulkien is a whiney bitch?

Poll Results: 100%*

*Poll sampled 1 person. Poll is 100% accurate according to that one person.


Originally posted by BacklashThats your opinion. It dosen't change mine, so go harrass someone else who gives a shit what you think.

I hate to use the old adage "It takes one to know one" but it does seem extremely appropriate right now.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash
Ok, whatever, lets just drop it, because you're right, I'm getting whiney. But in my defense, you started this whole thread with my name plastered right in the beginning.

My assessment of the speech is my own.

On the contrary, I believe in polls for what they are. See my last post.

Agreed.

After Bush's speech at the Republican Convention when I'm here being a fanboy you can get me back with multiple articles about him getting little to no bounce and trailing. :yes:

[Parkbandit]

The truth is... Kerry was nominated because he won the first couple of primaries and people thought he was the answer to beat Bush. He gained the momentium quickly and coasted the rest of the way.

I bet if people could turn back the time machine now.. they would:

1) Beat the fuck out of anyone in Iowa and New Hampshire who intended voting for Kerry
2) Put a gag on Dean after losing any primary
3) Ask Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton to shut the fuck up because they didn't have a chance in hell of winning shit.
4) Tell Lieberman to thank Al Gore for NOT backing him. Tell him to use the "I won't cry like Gor... er a baby" platform.
5) Tell Clark to learn how to flip a fucking pancake man.. it's not brain surgery.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DianaBanana
All politicians suck. :blah: The guy who accidently (?) said Kennedy instead of Kerry is the man. Bidel, I think his name is.
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Tell Clark to learn how to flip a fucking pancake man.. it's not brain surgery.He should have looked around hurriedly and shot it. That would have been so hot.

[Kefka]

The truth is... Bush is the Manchurian (Carlyle) President

[Wezas]

While I don't agree with Backlash's poll, I do find it amusing (especially the *).

And PB. Who would you recommend the Democratic Party nominate? Edwards?

And please, a real answer. Not a "Doesn't matter, they all suck" type statement.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas
While I don't agree with Backlash's poll, I do find it amusing (especially the *).

And PB. Who would you recommend the Democratic Party nominate? Edwards?

And please, a real answer. Not a "Doesn't matter, they all suck" type statement.

To be perfectly honest.. I did think all the nominees did suck. Of all the nominees, I think Dean or Clark had the best chance of beating Bush. Dean fucked it up with his lithium free speech after losing.. and Clark fucked it up by his late start and generally boring speeches.

Kerry and Edwards are far too Liberal to secure any sizable "Republican" votes.

I'm not familiar with too many Democrats... and hell, I can't imagine who the Republican nominee in 2008 when Bush leaves the White House. McCain maybe...

Either way, should be a good election year with a Republican and Democratic Primary process.

McCain vs. Clinton anyone?

Edited to add: I actually think Clinton would have made a better opponent this year. She is kind of like Bush in that people either love her or hate her. She is far more popular than Kerry is.. and less Liberal.

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Parkbandit]

[Latrinsorm]

What they should do is get rid of that silly 22nd amendment.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
What they should do is get rid of that silly 22nd amendment.

Yeah. Bill Clinton would still be in office. :lol:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Kefka
Yeah. Bill Clinton would still be in office. :lol: At least we wouldn't have to worry about 2 guys that go by President Bush. :bleh: