So, by asking 579 "likely" Democrats, they believe they can get a 95% "level of confidence" that their results are in fact, the truth.Originally Posted by Rassy Poll
579 out of what, 50+ Million Registered Democrats? Maybe 100 Million actual Democrats or Democrats supporters.
579 = 100,000,000
Interesting, to say the least.
Raz is generally tight with their polling. I find it more trust worthy than a lot of others.
It is still very early though. The first Debate is Thursday evening for the democrats.
They can be as tight as they like, I will continue to doubt the validity and accuracy of polling, where the questions can be tailored to obtain a specific answer, and 579 people are supposed to be accurately representative of 100+ Million. This isn't a leftist issue, it's a doubt-of-polling issue, for me.Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
Fish there was a genius professor who teaches the intro to my masters of science program named Carl Drott - currently a renowned expert in information retrieval and other such fields - in the 1960's pretty much invented the statistical explanation as to how 579 people could be considered 95% level of confidence. the theory is called Drotts Theorum of Statistical Significance, here's a primer: http://drott.cis.drexel.edu/sample/errors.html there's real math behind these polls, please don't fall into the same trap of CBNY's outlook where all math and science is a liberal conspiracy against patriotic red blooded Americans.Originally Posted by Warfish
Originally Posted by bitonti
yes....be free thinking like bitonti who believe a tiny few represent the masses..
I actually had a chance to work at Rasmussen in July, I don't know why I didn't take that job. They are located right by my house.
I find polling to be much like religion, i.e. Faith based.
Faith that no one would ever ask a biased outcome-oriented question, and that the sample group really IS honest, and that all the whoo-doo theory behind it all really IS legit.
Whenc ommons ense tells a differnet story, that questions are inherantly baised, and often VERY biased due to who asks them, and that people are rarely honest when polled, and that the opinions of 579 people simply isn't enough to really gauage the 100+ Million Voters out there.
note that if they say 95% certainty there must be statistical backing to make that claim. it's legitimate math, please read's drott's theories, page 4 in the link
As the old saying goes... there are three types of lies.
That goes all the way around.
BTW - I didn't look at the poll, just sayin.
You use LEgitimate as if, in such a case, it actually MEANS something.Originally Posted by bitonti
Know how it could?
It's easy. Poll your little 579 people. Then, to prove your numbers (and math) is legit, go out and ask all 300+ Million Americans.
If the numbers come back exactly right (or, as they always say, within +/-2%), great. Till that actuallyhappens...it's all faith-based thinking backed by hoo-doo, mathematical hoo-doo and otherwise.
And Bit, you of all people should be smart enough to know number are easily manipulated to say whatever you want them to.
you are exhibiting luddite thinking. warfish you are smarter than that. Surveys are valid forms of information gathering, you can choose to not believe that, just like people chose to believe the sun revolved around the Earth, that doesn't necessarily make it true.Originally Posted by Warfish
And you are exibiting naive sheep-like thinking my friend. Surveys are routinely biased small-sample propaganda with very questionable results. You can choose to believe in them, just like those who believe in invisible men in Heaven, Creationism, Utopian Socialism and believe in Climate Change destroying the World within 5 years, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.Originally Posted by bitonti
until you read the link i posted, the math behind the thinking, you have no right to make this comparison. math is not a matter of faith warfish, im surprised we are even having this discussion. I can think the number 10 is the number 11 all I want that's not how math works.Originally Posted by Warfish
Don't you mean:Originally Posted by Come Back to NY
...be free thinking like bitonti who believe a tiny few should think on behalf of the masses.
bold words for a man who's entire party relies upon AM radio and fox news to dictate talking points to the masses.Originally Posted by sackdance
there's a reason why liberal AM radio failed, it's because liberals are for the most part independant thinkers who don't want to be told what to think. Conservatives on the other hand thrive on it.
Historically speaking, polls have done a decent job of representing the masses. Some polls can be very biased and flat out wrong, but for the most part they do a good job and can be very meaningful.
come again, sophomore?Originally Posted by bitonti
the only thought, including MSM & academia,
libs dont dominate is AM talk radio and cable news
proof positive lib "ideas" cant compete in media they dont control
no matter how many millions libs and the govt pour into national
palestinian radio, air al-qaeda, etc
why else try to reintroduce the "fairness doctrine"-to force
lib pablum down our throat
at least we know what a drexel university education is worth
university of phoenix online seems a better value
drexel dragons chant: we're #112!
I wonder if Al was one of the 517 polled?
It's worth clicking on the link for the pic.
From todays NY Times
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois told several hundred black political organizers yesterday in Manhattan that African-Americans had been “complicit in diminishing ourselves” by talking about blacks in the same sort of degrading terms that the radio host Don Imus recently used about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.
“I’ve heard those words around the kitchen tables,” Mr. Obama said, speaking to members of the Rev. Al Sharpton’s group, the National Action Network at its ninth convention. “All of us have been complicit in diminishing ourselves, and engaging in the kind of self hatred that keeps our young men and young women down. That’s something we have to talk about in this election.”
Several audience members applauded or nodded; they did, too, when Mr. Obama, who is seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, said he did not want black votes simply because he was black.
“That’s not what America is about,” he said. “I want it to be because of what I’ve done, and how I’ve lived, and the principles I stand for, and the ideas I promote.” He promised to improve the public education and health care systems, and affirmed his longstanding opposition to the war in Iraq.
While the audience warmly received Mr. Obama, it was not an especially rousing affair. One of his rivals, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, received more standing ovations when she spoke on Friday to the group.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are competing for the endorsement of Mr. Sharpton, who said he would make his choice among the Democratic field in a few weeks. (John Edwards of North Carolina and other candidates have spoken at the annual convention.)
Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton have been courting Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Sharpton’s associates said. She has been determined to lock up political and fund-raising support on her home turf, and a Sharpton endorsement would help with her task of vying for black votes.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Sharpton have good ties, but associates of Mr. Sharpton say he feels a natural rivalry with Mr. Obama; Mr. Sharpton ran for president in 2004 and has worked to become an influential and visible leader.
The Sharpton-Obama-Clinton dynamic was made unusually plain at one point yesterday when Mr. Obama, pausing in his remarks, looked at the podium and said, “There’s something humming down here.”
“That’s Sharpton’s BlackBerry,” Mr. Obama added, and then quickly quipped, “Is that Hillary calling?”
As the audience laughed, he said: “I was just checking. I wasn’t sure.”
Polls: A perfect excuse to stop thinking for yourself.