Lol I was going to google it as I thought it was a word I had never heard before.
If you don’t think any public polls have any value, then you obviously don’t know much about polling.
You’ve pretty much slandered the poll because you think the numbers were too low, and because you think polls
“generally go looking for the respondents who they know will answer a certain way. When they want it inconclusive or close they will vary it to the areas they know will respond the way they want. Also sometimes the questions are leading and encourage a person to answer a certain way.”.
They declare the numbers up front. They give confidence intervals. They set out what the questions were. We don’t know if they skewed the target households, but they do have a range of respondents across the spectrum. Where is the evidence you use to call the poll a sham? It seems to boil down to your dislike of polls, and that like all polls its based off a sample and used to extrapolate. Which is standard statistical practice. The caveats come with the confidence interval and the knowledge of the process.
Even small polls have value, but only when taken into context of all the other polling in the state. Perfectly correct in saying a small sample size of a particular subset of the community doesn’t necessarily reflect the state as a whole. It probably is enough to indicate the opinions of that particular subset though.
Have seen many of the private polls that Labor do in marginal electorates.
They may poll only 500 by phone in an electorate of 80,000 and the results mirror Election Day very closely. Always surprised me.
No it just means i have a different viewpoint to you, not that you are right or I am right. Not everything you think and believe is what others believe, you don’t shyte gold.
[quote=“anastasios1979, post:842, topic:11277, full:true”]
Ah - My vocabulary is too limited to introduce BB to new words - This is the domain of AN.
3 Likes
Tweet from Nate Silvee from 538, one off the best polling statisticians around:
I’m seeing this data point cited a LOT and would encourage some caution about interpreting it.
For most voters, “more likely to support after allegations” means “I’m a Moore supporter & don’t believe the allegations” and not “I approve of the conduct the allegations allege”.
1 Like
Do they believe that because “fake news”?
That’s going to be the worst outcome of the Trump era. When I heard Turnbull using those words a while back, purely to avoid a debate, I knew we were farked.
Picking and choosing opinions is one thing, this is (usually) quite a bigger step than that.
At this point it is only an allegation not confirmed, nor has he been found guilty of anything and he has denied all the allegations. If you are a supporter then that is what you are going to go with.
[quote=“yaco55, post:848, topic:11277, full:true”]
Yeah…but my words are in the dictionary.
2 Likes
Another woman has come forward about Roy Moore alleging sexual assault in 1977 and that he used his position as District Attorney at the time to try and intimidate her into silence.
Wouldn’t surprise me. These people do not seem to have boundaries the rest of us think are reasonable.
Story in the New Yorker that when he was in his 30s he actually got banned from his local shopping mall for persistently trying to pick up the teenagers that used to hang out there. Article is sourced largely from the NOTORIOUSLY LIBERAL Alabama law enforcement community…
3 Likes
Actually, just because others don’t believe what I do, doesn’t mean I’m wrong. 
But seriously, there are lots of issues where there are multiple beliefs or opinions. Sometimes that is fair. And sometimes a whole swathe of people are just plain wrong. Having a different opinion on things which have a factual basis (as opposed to say the view whether draftee X will make it) doesn’t mean all the opinions are valid. A great example of this would be vaccinations.
Not qualified judicial appointee married to white house lawyer…
The title really says it all. So not only did Trump nominate (and the Senate pass) a judicial candidate with no experience in court, he’s also married to a member of the whitehouse staff, and just “forgot” to mention it on his disclosure form. I mean, it only says:
1 Like
Another day, another lunatic goes on a rampage. He ended up at an elementary school, after a number of other incidents 
EDIT: Updated to be less misleading, thanks IT.
It wasn’t specifically at the school, it was random and involved the school at one point. Most of the victims weren’t at the school.
But yes, another day, another shooting.
And that’s the fundamental problem with the right to bear arms. People get angry & violent and use whatever weapons they have access to - fists / knives / guns, whatever. The more lethal the available weapon, the more damage done.
1 Like
Too close to home 