IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New hey nother serious question
according to some wikileaks emails example http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples is how the campaign can manipulate polls. No issue, a campaign can manipulate what ever they want, but what is the point? Do media accept these conditions to conduct polls? I wouldn't think so.

You have any idea what they are trying to accomplish here?
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
New 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)
New 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.
New 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
New 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.
New 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.
New Depends on the context. ;-)
New 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
New Over-sampling isn't nefarious
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/even_polls_about_baseball.html

Pollsters 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.
New Thank you.
New 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?
--

Drew
New 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.
New 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.
--

Drew
New Exactly.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New I totally missed that
It's not a "new Podesta email", it's a just released Podesta email ... from 2008.
--

Drew
New thats what I was looking for, thanks
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
New More from The Atlantic
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New It's almost as if...
...actual knowledge is an antidote to bullshit, or something.
New :-)!
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
New PK weighs in: Oversampling at the Fed!
     hey nother serious question - (boxley) - (20)
         From a casual glance - (hnick)
         Taking things out of context isn't way to enlightenment. - (Another Scott) - (5)
             not taking anything out of context, was looking at the Atlas project info - (boxley) - (4)
                 I don't see what Wikileaks has to do with polling, but YMMV. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     Serious question. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         Depends on the context. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                         The BBC and PBS are pretty good as sources. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         Over-sampling isn't nefarious - (malraux) - (11)
             Thank you. -NT - (Another Scott)
             Specifically ... - (drook) - (3)
                 Yes, that's the LAT poll I mentioned. - (malraux) - (2)
                     Yes, that one - (drook) - (1)
                         Exactly. -NT - (malraux)
             Also too. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 I totally missed that - (drook)
             thats what I was looking for, thanks -NT - (boxley)
             More from The Atlantic - (malraux)
             It's almost as if... - (pwhysall) - (1)
                 :-)! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         PK weighs in: Oversampling at the Fed! - (Another Scott)

Your LRPD God[tm] is HERE!
84 ms