Post #414,775
10/24/16 12:29:32 AM
10/24/16 12:29:32 AM
|

hey nother serious question
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #414,777
10/24/16 5:49:11 AM
10/24/16 5:49:11 AM
|

From a casual glance
if they can get "our wingding is ahead" often enough, it may become true. Sort of like "hillary is a monster" or "there is a real equivalence between trump and hillary". It also looks like you are trying to set up anther stupid equivalence for use down the thread.
"Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
|
Post #414,778
10/24/16 7:32:30 AM
10/24/16 7:32:30 AM
|

Taking things out of context isn't way to enlightenment.
"Obviously" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that story.
I don't see the value in relying on the spin from Assange's outfit on what excerpts and out-of-context stolen e-mails say.
All polls have to make assumptions about who will actually turn out to vote. There's nothing especially nefarious about recognizing that. Pollsters want to be right.
Individual polls and individual polling outfits can be wrong. But it's hard to tilt averages of large numbers of polls over time.
Hillary really does have a large (and recently increasing) lead.
See Sam Wang at Princeton for a level-headed discussion of the polling.
FWIW.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #414,793
10/24/16 12:04:28 PM
10/24/16 12:04:28 PM
|

not taking anything out of context, was looking at the Atlas project info
that is not out of context, was full in brief. My question was along the lines that the news folks would not use these directives. So what is the point of the exercise? It was a real question but apparently any answer is going to be defensive so let this thread die.
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #414,795
10/24/16 12:18:37 PM
10/24/16 12:18:37 PM
|

I don't see what Wikileaks has to do with polling, but YMMV.
We know that Assange has an agenda - he has said that wants to defeat Hillary. We can't trust anything that he releases to be objective. (Doesn't mean it isn't, it's just we can't trust it.) The original story you pointed to had the writer saying that things were "obvious" when in fact they aren't. Previous "leaked" (actually stolen) e-mails from Hillary's people were forwards of stories published in the press but were spun as things that Podesta (or some other big-wig) had said. It's dishonest to spin things that way. Given those things, it's hard for me to see what you want me to comment on. How is anyone in the Clinton campaign "manipulating" polls? This is more flailing by people who don't accept the results (just like Rmoney's people were "unskewing" polls in 2012). Even Rove is saying that Trump can't win. Anything can look nefarious when taken out of context and when spun by people with an agenda. Remember Shirley Sherrod? I'm happy to discuss almost anything with you, but you know what gets my Spidey-Sense tingling. If you don't want me to respond that way, then pick a better source. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #414,798
10/24/16 12:31:26 PM
10/24/16 12:31:26 PM
|

Serious question.
I know you don't like rt.com. I think you don't like counterpunch.org. I won't ask for your list of "approved" sources, because I can probably guess those: HRC for President campaign, whitehouse.gov, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, etc. ad all other corporate owned media outlets. So, I'll ask which sources you believe are unreliable. Do you have a current list?
bcnu, Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #414,804
10/24/16 12:40:13 PM
10/24/16 12:40:13 PM
|

Depends on the context. ;-)
|
Post #414,808
10/24/16 12:45:06 PM
10/24/16 12:45:06 PM
|

The BBC and PBS are pretty good as sources.
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #414,796
10/24/16 12:26:13 PM
10/24/16 12:26:13 PM
|

Over-sampling isn't nefarious
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/even_polls_about_baseball.htmlPollsters sometimes "oversample" a survey sub-population in order to increase the reliability of the results for that group. More interviews means less potential random sampling error. Before tabulating the data for the full sample, however, they "weight" back the oversample its correct proportion with the larger sample.
I checked with Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC News, and he provided a few additional details. The ABC Polling Unit started with a nationally representative sample of 1,803 randomly selected adults interviewed between March 29 and April 4. Of these, 660 described themselves as baseball fans (on the survey's first question). Of these, 64 were African-American.
The pollsters wanted a bigger and more reliable sampling of African-Americans. So they continued calling from April 5 to April 22 and interviewed another 476 randomly sampled African Americans, of whom 139 were self-described baseball fans.
Thus (adding everything up), the ESPN/ABC survey interviewed 799 baseball fans, including 203 among African Americans. Before tabulating the data, however, they weighted the combined sample of 2,279 (the original 1,803 plus the oversample of 476 blacks) in a way that reduced the proportion of African-Americans to its correct value as determined by the U.S. Census.**
This practice is not at all unusual. The intent is to generate more statistically reliable results by race, not -- as Brown puts it -- to "generate racially charged results." This is more people frothing about things they don't actually understand. Over-sampling increases accuracy. It's not nefarious manipulation of the results.
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #414,797
10/24/16 12:30:54 PM
10/24/16 12:30:54 PM
|

Thank you.
|
Post #414,799
10/24/16 12:34:31 PM
10/24/16 12:34:31 PM
|

Specifically ...
Research, microtargeting & polling projects - Over-sample Hispanics - Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets) - Over-sample the Native American population The lower the expected turnout of a particular demographic, the higher the margin of error if you survey that demographic in proportion. Remember the story recently of the single black student who skewed a poll by 3% every time he responded?
|
Post #414,801
10/24/16 12:37:34 PM
10/24/16 12:37:34 PM
|

Yes, that's the LAT poll I mentioned.
His opinion was weighted at something over 300 if I recall.
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #414,803
10/24/16 12:40:06 PM
10/24/16 12:40:06 PM
|

Yes, that one
If I understand things correctly, you oversample so that you can underweight and reduce volatility. That poll went the other way, just take who they got and overweight to make up the difference.
|
Post #414,806
10/24/16 12:40:31 PM
10/24/16 12:40:31 PM
|

Exactly.
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #414,802
10/24/16 12:39:38 PM
10/24/16 12:39:38 PM
|

Also too.
|
Post #414,807
10/24/16 12:43:31 PM
10/24/16 12:43:31 PM
|

I totally missed that
It's not a "new Podesta email", it's a just released Podesta email ... from 2008.
|
Post #414,813
10/24/16 2:15:13 PM
10/24/16 2:15:13 PM
|

thats what I was looking for, thanks
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #414,817
10/24/16 6:31:44 PM
10/24/16 6:31:44 PM
|

More from The Atlantic
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #414,830
10/25/16 4:55:46 AM
10/25/16 4:55:46 AM
|

It's almost as if...
...actual knowledge is an antidote to bullshit, or something.
|
Post #414,855
10/25/16 3:25:16 PM
10/25/16 3:25:16 PM
|

:-)!
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #414,819
10/24/16 7:01:15 PM
10/24/16 7:01:15 PM
|

PK weighs in: Oversampling at the Fed!
|