NationStates Jolt Archive

Generally, when a President goes on television, interrupts prime time and makes what nearly every pundit alive breathlessly touts as a "major policy shift," the President can count on a bump in the polls. It's like a law of something--there's a certain percentage of the population that will always give the President the benefit of the doubt right after he's on television talking about something. The bump may not last long, but it's always there.

Until now (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/usat_poll_ameri.html). From USA Today:
• Bush's overall "approval rating" stood at 34%, vs. 37% before the speech.

• The percentage who said they disapprove of Bush's performance as president was 63%, vs. 59% before the speech.
That's right. He lost support after his speech. He actually turned people off instead of activating the lizard brain. And apparently, this isn't the first time (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/collapse-of-bush-presidency-poses.html) either.
For the second straight day, 35% of Americans approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That’s the lowest level of Approval ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.

It is interesting to note that the last time the President’s Approval Ratings hit a new low followed the President’s speech on immigration. Typically, President’s (sic) expect to get a positive bounce following a national address.
There's only one solution for President Bush. Stay off television. Don't open your mouth in front of a camera. Maybe, just maybe you'll avoid hitting Nixonian levels that way. You've got almost two years to let the public forget just how much it hates your frigging guts before you leave office, but we can't forget if you keep reminding us just how much of a douchebag you are. So for all our sakes, President Bush--stay off the teevee. You'll make a large majority of the country happier for it. :D

Amen to that, man.

Scary how this man who barely won the presidency thinks that he can do whatever he wants (same party congressional control helped) but that even after his party loses horribly (with the main issue being the war in Iraq) he still has the balls to push a poorly formed policy.

When he gets on TV to promote his policies he doesn't make you want to join him, more like beat him with a pipe...

then as a side note comes out and says to the new democratic majority, well if you dont like my policy where is your policy... who is leading this country.

what an ass...

sorry, letting my frustrations come out...

One of the US's most unpopular presidents, what'd you expect? He interrupted the mindless and naive daily show audience, what'd you think was gonna happen?

Maybe, just maybe you'll avoid hitting Nixonian levels that way.

Wouldn't avoiding that require his popularity to not go up?

Our semi-retarded president has always suffered from Nixon Syndrome. Very baaaad in front of the cameras and always putting his foot in his mouth. He needs to shut up permanently. The only thing i want to hear from the criminal White Hosue is "I resign." Hope springs eternal...

Our semi-retarded president has always suffered from Nixon Syndrome. Very baaaad in front of the cameras and always putting his foot in his mouth. He needs to shut up permanently. The only thing i want to hear from the criminal White Hosue is "I resign." Hope springs eternal...

Well, Nixon had one thing going for him: He was a pretty damn effective President.

Which Bush doesn't have that. So I leave with this:

"Mr. President, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

In that case, I hope he appears on television more often.

The only thing i want to hear from the criminal White Hosue is "I resign."

screw that

"i deeply apologize for my horrific crimes and ask this court to have mercy..."

screw that

"i deeply apologize for my horrific crimes and ask this court to have mercy..."

Nah. I'd rather hear "Dick Cheney and Karl Rove just spontaneously combusted!"

I'd like to take a moment to point out that he hasn't actually done anything illegal yet.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that he hasn't actually done anything illegal yet.

Says you.

Says you.
Alright, let's hear what you got. What has he done that was actually illegal?

Alright, let's hear what you got. What has he done that was actually illegal?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html

Alright, let's hear what you got. What has he done that was actually illegal?

the wire taps without a warrant may well have gone beyond the limits of power granted to him by the authorization to use military force as well as overstepped the inherent powers of the executive, thus unconstitutional.

Wouldn't avoiding that require his popularity to not go up?

Nixon was at 25% when he resigned, so he's still got a little way to go, butif he keeps showing up on television, he'll be down there soon.

Nixon was at 25% when he resigned, so he's still got a little way to go, butif he keeps showing up on television, he'll be down there soon.

Ah. Hasn't Bush dipped below 25%, though?

the wire taps without a warrant may well have gone beyond the limits of power granted to him by the authorization to use military force as well as overstepped the inherent powers of the executive, thus unconstitutional.

The Patriot act allows warantless wiretaps, and was allowed and ratified by the legislative body (congress), Military force was allowed by the congress by overwhelming support (Bi partisan), and along with the support of an international coalition. From what i've research, if the president has necessary congressional support, (Wilson, Truman, Lincoln) war is legal. Study up mate.

Ah. Hasn't Bush dipped below 25%, though?

Forgive me, I last caught his approval at 32%, did I miss something? Its not really uncommon for international leaders too have low support, Blair and Chirac are around the same range as Bush last time I checked.

The Patriot act allows warantless wiretaps, and was allowed and ratified by the legislative body (congress),
Which means jack shit, since it is unconstitutional.

Nixon was at 25% when he resigned, so he's still got a little way to go, butif he keeps showing up on television, he'll be down there soon.

Let's hope so. :)

Which means jack shit, since it is unconstitutional.
How so? What specifically about it is in violation of the Constitution? If you have an opinion back it up with facts. It makes it a lot easier to debate.

Anyhoo, I've got an appointment in the morning about my foot so I've got to be signing off now and since class goes back in session tomorrow night I might not be able to get back to this topic very soon.

The Patriot act allows warantless wiretaps, and was allowed and ratified by the legislative body (congress), Military force was allowed by the congress by overwhelming support (Bi partisan), and along with the support of an international coalition. From what i've research, if the president has necessary congressional support, (Wilson, Truman, Lincoln) war is legal.

O RLY?

Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI's powers have been greatly expanded. First, warrants can be obtained under FISA if intelligence gathering is only a "significant purpose," rather than the "primary purpose." Because of this change, as long as intelligence gathering is a "significant purpose" of the warrant, evidence gathered by what could otherwise be unconstitutional methods might be used for a criminal investigation. Second, the PATRIOT Act specifically lowers the threshold for obtaining a full collection warrant for Internet traffic. Instead of needing probable cause as required by Title III, the FBI now only needs to show that the information to be gathered is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." That is a much lower standard than showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. The third major change is that when a wiretap warrant is issued, the person whose communications are being captured is notified, though sometimes this notification is allowed to be after the fact. The PATRIOT Act now allows nearly any search to be made in secret. Finally, these changes made by the Patriot Act are not limited to surveillance of suspected terrorists, but apply to all surveillance cases.

The Patriot Act made it easier to OBTAIN a warrant. It does not say that wiretaps may be committed without one. Please show me where it does.

On the contrary, Bush has argued that the authority comes from the authorization to use military force, NOT the patriot act. The authorization does not specifically state anything about wiretaps merely that bush may exercise whatever means necessary within the bounds of the law. Whethe this covers wiretaps or not is unsure, and many members of congress have come out and said that they did not intend to authorize that use of power.

Study up mate

You first.

Forgive me, I last caught his approval at 32%, did I miss something? Its not really uncommon for international leaders too have low support, Blair and Chirac are around the same range as Bush last time I checked.

His approval rating in the past has been lower than 32%. I just can't remember if it ever went below 25%.

The Patriot act allows warantless wiretaps

the patriot act, horrific as it is, does not authorize bush's domestic spying program. not in the slightest.

How so? What specifically about it is in violation of the Constitution?
The bits that allow expansion of various FBI abilities. Some of them break the privacy Amendments.

His approval rating in the past has been lower than 32%. I just can't remember if it ever went below 25%.
According to Zogby the lowest it's ever hit has been 30%
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1217

Here's a list of all the major polls of him in recent times:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

The 30% one is underlined in red, though this is just coincidence as it underlines the end of the year, rather than the worst polling result.

While his overall rating is 30%, just 24% give him positive marks for his handling of the war. So that's Nixonish.


I think there's still enough idiots (sorry) neo-con diehards out there to stop it slipping much further than that. The zogby link says 60% of Republicans give him a positive job rating.
60%!
Positive on what?!

A
I think there's still enough idiots (sorry) neo-con diehards out there to stop it slipping much further than that. The zogby link says 60% of Republicans give him a positive job rating.
60%!
Positive on what?!

My uncle is one of them. He says the shrub is one of the best presidents ever! *sighs*

One thing I found out is that many Jordanians like him as well (our office manager is Jordanian). It seems they like that he removed Saddam.

The office manager heard it first from her fiance (also Jordanian) and she started asking others and most said they like him. Go figure.....

One of the US's most unpopular presidents, what'd you expect? He interrupted the mindless and naive daily show audience, what'd you think was gonna happen?

Mindless and naive compared to what? Other American shows audiences? doubtful to say the least.

But of course you have information to back up your statement :rolleyes:

Besides which do you honestly think an interruption would cause an approval ratings change of that magnitude?

My uncle is one of them. He says the shrub is one of the best presidents ever! *sighs*

One thing I found out is that many Jordanians like him as well (our office manager is Jordanian). It seems they like that he removed Saddam.

The office manager heard it first from her fiance (also Jordanian) and she started asking others and most said they like him. Go figure.....
Well that (Jordanians liking him cause he ousted Saddam) I can understand.

But 60% of republicans still approving of him? Just crazy.
I'm trying to be objective here, but what are the good things he's done?
Surely even the most diehard repub would have to admit GWB could have done things better.
Much better.
And if one agrees with that, then one couldn't possibly agree with the poll question, "Do you feel President Bush is doing a good job?"

O RLY?



The Patriot Act made it easier to OBTAIN a warrant. It does not say that wiretaps may be committed without one. Please show me where it does.

On the contrary, Bush has argued that the authority comes from the authorization to use military force, NOT the patriot act. The authorization does not specifically state anything about wiretaps merely that bush may exercise whatever means necessary within the bounds of the law. Whethe this covers wiretaps or not is unsure, and many members of congress have come out and said that they did not intend to authorize that use of power.



You first.


Actually it really does allow it. If it will take to long to get the warrent through normal channels, and the investigating officers are willing to testify taht they believe national security (including danger of loss of life and or limb) is at risk, then they may act as if they have a warrant until one can be got. Action thus happens long before 6the warrant is ever signed. This is what Bush wants to extend by simply saying he can authorize it on a case by case basis. Since he is not of the judiciary, I too believe it illegal. He is a commander, not a judge. His place is to take action, not to decide if sad action is legal or not. Only a judge can call a wiretap legal,. He's overstepping his bounds.

I watched that address live at 1 pm (Australian Broadcasting Commission).

Then I watched the whole thing through twice more. There were still bits I blanked out on, because the man is such a poor speaker that I find myself looking at smears and specks of flyshit on my monitor instead of him.

Watching GWB read out loud fills me with great impatience and distractability. 'Just give me that and let me read it' I can't help thinking. It's not a long speech, it doesn't have a lot of statistics or wording-critical rhetoric in it. An average orator (average politician or anchor-person) could deliver that speech without the autoprompter. A good politician could deliver it without notes. But GWB is not the average orator, and he's a very ordinary reader. The shelf of books over his left shoulder notwithstanding, he can barely read at the moderate rate he delivers the address.

You can read the transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html) through in ten minutes, and it's actually a decent statement. The brief description of the situation in Iraq now is surprisingly accurate, and there are reasons given for the escalation of US involvement. The commentary on Iraqi politics is waffling, but it is extensive, and that's good because it honours the democracy this policy supposedly defends.
Given that it defends the indefensible -- escalation of the Iraq War -- the text of this speech is above average. B+

This passage is my favourite: "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship." That's clever writing, because the first image that springs to mind is GWB himself, on the deck of an aircraft-carrier. The audience is expected to make a double-take, compare Bush with Truman, while accepting that 'terrorists' will never sign a statement of surrender like the honourable Japanese. The word 'father' is in there too. Another double-take, Iraq I vs Iraq II. A gem of writing ...
Delivered by an idiot. He holds his head up in pride, gives that goofy grin. Despite all the rehearsals, he actually thinks that was about him and his pilot moment. Someone must have explained that this was a reference to the US's greatest and most just military victory, the surrender of Japan. He just forgot.

Bah. Idiot.

The Patriot act allows warantless wiretaps, and was allowed and ratified by the legislative body (congress), Military force was allowed by the congress by overwhelming support (Bi partisan), and along with the support of an international coalition. From what i've research, if the president has necessary congressional support, (Wilson, Truman, Lincoln) war is legal. Study up mate.
You ought to study up. Nothing in the PATRIOT Act overturns the requirement to get warrants from the FISA Court, and anyone who tells you different is a liar or hasn't read the PATRIOT Act.

Actually it really does allow it. If it will take to long to get the warrent through normal channels, and the investigating officers are willing to testify taht they believe national security (including danger of loss of life and or limb) is at risk, then they may act as if they have a warrant until one can be got. Action thus happens long before 6the warrant is ever signed. This is what Bush wants to extend by simply saying he can authorize it on a case by case basis. Since he is not of the judiciary, I too believe it illegal. He is a commander, not a judge. His place is to take action, not to decide if sad action is legal or not. Only a judge can call a wiretap legal,. He's overstepping his bounds.
A warrant is still necessary, and PATRIOT has nothing to do with that--the 72 hour time frame was built into the FISA statute. Bush is claiming that he doesn't need a warrant--period.

perhapse he's hoping the crowd of angry trogs with blunt instruments waiting to get him alone without his secret service escourt will feel sorry for him and go away. somehow i doubt that this is an effective ploy. as the crowd seems to be growing. and he only thinks we're troggs because we don't worship the rand corporation. and his puppet masters keep telling him we don't exist. or at least that's what he thinks the're telling him.

now if any one needs to be extrodinarily rendered, to face a war crimes tribunal, i mean along with his puppet masters, ... the name george w does seem to keep comming to mind ...

"oh dinsdale ..."

(actualy it DOES cross our mind, that perhapse he should stay ON tv, and out of politics all togather! and take his international carpetbagging corporate mafia with him. we he thinks the're 'his'. wheras they of coure, KNOW he's their poster child, whome they let to warm the chair and play pressident. oh and he's so thrilled to get to, just look at him.

er no thanx, you look at him. sometime arround 2012 i may get arround to turning the tv back on.

but maybe if he could host a late night sitcom instead, well we'd certainly be living in a safer and more peaceful world if he did. INSTEAD of ever having been appointed would be world dictator by whatever bunce of corporate mafia capos did)

=^^=
.../\...

"Someone must have explained that this was a reference to the US's greatest and most just military victory, the surrender of Japan. He just forgot."

Not the first time either. I had a calendar last year with a Bushism for every day of the year, and there was one where he was in Japan and saying that he was starting his tour of Asia there because for one hundred years America and Japan had enjoyed a close and friendly relationship. XD

"Someone must have explained that this was a reference to the US's greatest and most just military victory, the surrender of Japan. He just forgot."

Not the first time either. I had a calendar last year with a Bushism for every day of the year, and there was one where he was in Japan and saying that he was starting his tour of Asia there because for one hundred years America and Japan had enjoyed a close and friendly relationship. XD

daaaaaaaaaaaaaanng!
was he one of the kinds on art linkletter's "kids say the darndest things"?

=^^=
.../\...

There was another that said "Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." You have to suspect he failed high school geography classes. :p

Every time I see the latest poll numbers, all I can think is:

"We bloody well told you so."

I knew Bush was a liar, and incompetent, and an utter embarrassment before he ever took office. I knew it when he was declared President by a court that over-ruled the will of the people. I knew it when my fellow citizens were so stupid and disgustingly ruled by fear that they elected Bush for a second term.

My whole family knew it. My friends knew it. We were active and vocal during the second Bush election year, doing everything we could to get the word out about what a disgrace our little Boy King really is.

But no, the country hated gays and brown people and women who choose to have sex. The country hated people who don't pray to Jeebus. And their pathetic hate (and the fear behind it) was enough to get their votes for this worthless loser of a president.

Oh, but NOW everybody notices that he's an idiot and a liar. NOW people notice that the war is bullshit and the policies behind it are crap. NOW they all are upset.

Well, we fucking told you so, morons. You are getting exactly the president you deserve. Next time you consider letting homophobia and racism dictate your vote, maybe you'll think twice.

perhapse he's hoping the crowd of angry trogs with blunt instruments...
<snip, with respect >

Nice lyrics. You are a muso, right?

Every time I see the latest poll numbers, all I can think is:

"We bloody well told you so."

I knew Bush was a liar, and incompetent, and an utter embarrassment before he ever took office. I knew it when he was declared President by a court that over-ruled the will of the people. I knew it when my fellow citizens were so stupid and disgustingly ruled by fear that they elected Bush for a second term.

My whole family knew it. My friends knew it. We were active and vocal during the second Bush election year, doing everything we could to get the word out about what a disgrace our little Boy King really is.

But no, the country hated gays and brown people and women who choose to have sex. The country hated people who don't pray to Jeebus. And their pathetic hate (and the fear behind it) was enough to get their votes for this worthless loser of a president.

Oh, but NOW everybody notices that he's an idiot and a liar. NOW people notice that the war is bullshit and the policies behind it are crap. NOW they all are upset.

Well, we fucking told you so, morons. You are getting exactly the president you deserve. Next time you consider letting homophobia and racism dictate your vote, maybe you'll think twice.

Even my mother in law, who is the stereotypical homophobe racist dyed-in-the-wool Republican theocrat that elected Bush, hates Bush... just not enough to let one of them Libruls get in.

I'm not really surprised, not at all.

Anyways, President Bush has said on many times that he's aware of the poll numbers but he doesn't pay to much attention to them. I don't blame him in regards to the polls.

I admit, polls can be very interesting but I detest that they are accurate. Only a very small number of people are surveyed or polled of more than 300 million people. Polls can also be very misleading. I still stand by the polls being inaccurate.

I admit, polls can be very interesting but I detest that they are accurate.
Freudian slip, perhaps?

Every time I see the latest poll numbers, all I can think is:

"We bloody well told you so."

I knew Bush was a liar, and incompetent, and an utter embarrassment before he ever took office. I knew it when he was declared President by a court that over-ruled the will of the people. I knew it when my fellow citizens were so stupid and disgustingly ruled by fear that they elected Bush for a second term.

My whole family knew it. My friends knew it. We were active and vocal during the second Bush election year, doing everything we could to get the word out about what a disgrace our little Boy King really is.

But no, the country hated gays and brown people and women who choose to have sex. The country hated people who don't pray to Jeebus. And their pathetic hate (and the fear behind it) was enough to get their votes for this worthless loser of a president.

Oh, but NOW everybody notices that he's an idiot and a liar. NOW people notice that the war is bullshit and the policies behind it are crap. NOW they all are upset.

Well, we fucking told you so, morons. You are getting exactly the president you deserve. Next time you consider letting homophobia and racism dictate your vote, maybe you'll think twice.

Bottle, I like you more every time I read one of your posts. I hardily agree with you. Maybe we Americans will wise up and elect an Independent, a moderate centrist of some kind in 2008. I can only hope.

Bottle, I like you more every time I read one of your posts. I hardily agree with you. Maybe we Americans will wise up and elect an Independent, a moderate centrist of some kind in 2008. I can only hope.

Heartily, surely?

And if all we're going to get is a "moderate", then I guess that's better than what we have right now...

I'm not really surprised, not at all.

Anyways, President Bush has said on many times that he's aware of the poll numbers but he doesn't pay to much attention to them. I don't blame him in regards to the polls.
So he doesn't care what the population thinks of him as a President? That's probably not a good thing.

I admit, polls can be very interesting but I detest that they are accurate. Only a very small number of people are surveyed or polled of more than 300 million people. Polls can also be very misleading. I still stand by the polls being inaccurate.
And why do you think they're inaccurate?

Anyways, President Bush has said on many times that he's aware of the poll numbers but he doesn't pay to much attention to them. I don't blame him in regards to the polls.


Because, of course, public opinion is the enemy of Democracy...?

See, what has happened here is that the karmic universe has decided that disgust over the president is so great that from now on, America will be doomed to have crummy candidates until it collapses into the sea.

I can't think of any of the possible mainstream candidates for next election that I would vote for, on either side. Thanks alot, America.

Bottle, I like you more every time I read one of your posts.

*Blush*


I hardily agree with you. Maybe we Americans will wise up and elect an Independent, a moderate centrist of some kind in 2008. I can only hope.
Frankly, I don't think there's a chance in hell that an Independent will be elected president in 2008. I do think there's an excellent chance that a "moderate centrist of some kind" will be elected, since that seems to be the qualification that everybody is looking for.

I, of course, don't think that my country necessarily needs more "moderates" in the form that we currently see them. Being a "moderate" seems to consist of advocating that all topics have two equally correct possible positions, and a moderate is primarily concerned with finding ground in between the two which will piss off as few people as possible (and, thus, give the moderate increased electability).

I don't think all topics do have two equally correct positions, and thus I don't think it is necessarily a virtue to be a "moderate." Would we elect somebody who takes a "moderate" stance on human slavery? How about somebody who finds "moderate" ground between serial rapists and people who oppose rape?

*Blush*


Frankly, I don't think there's a chance in hell that an Independent will be elected president in 2008. I do think there's an excellent chance that a "moderate centrist of some kind" will be elected, since that seems to be the qualification that everybody is looking for.

I, of course, don't think that my country necessarily needs more "moderates" in the form that we currently see them. Being a "moderate" seems to consist of advocating that all topics have two equally correct possible positions, and a moderate is primarily concerned with finding ground in between the two which will piss off as few people as possible (and, thus, give the moderate increased electability).

I don't think all topics do have two equally correct positions, and thus I don't think it is necessarily a virtue to be a "moderate." Would we elect somebody who takes a "moderate" stance on human slavery? How about somebody who finds "moderate" ground between serial rapists and people who oppose rape?

The irony, of course, is that 'moderate' would essentially be a 'conservative' position. I guess that shows how far right-of-centre American politics are...

Err...Libertarians 2008? Yay? Maybe not.

I'm not really surprised, not at all.

Anyways, President Bush has said on many times that he's aware of the poll numbers but he doesn't pay to much attention to them. I don't blame him in regards to the polls.

I admit, polls can be very interesting but I detest that they are accurate. Only a very small number of people are surveyed or polled of more than 300 million people. Polls can also be very misleading. I still stand by the polls being inaccurate.

of course they are inaccurate. thats why they have that little +/- accuracy thing to tell you the range of confidence.

after hurricane katrina bush's polls with african americans were so low that it was possible that not a single african-american in the whole country thought he was doing a good job. or it could have been as high as 1 in 10 approving of him. what YOU can be sure of is that fewer than 15% approved. (*I* am sure that its closer to none)

So he doesn't care what the population thinks of him as a President? That's probably not a good thing.


And why do you think they're inaccurate?

Quite a few reasons to be honest. I'll give you the #1 reason being the fact that only on average between 1 and 3,000 people are polled. NewsFlash: We have more than 300 million people in the United States of America. Look at the numbers. Common Sense tells me in No Way can the polls be accurate with such small numbers and that very minimal amount does NOT in No way speak for the bulk. Any Logical thinker would understand that 3,000 people can't think nor speak for the more than 300,000,000 people.

Because, of course, public opinion is the enemy of Democracy...?

No, because they are not accurate. Polls are very controversial. They may be interesting to look at but they can be misleading, misrepresented, and definately not accurate.

Nobody will be able to convince me otherwise that 3,000 people speaks for more than 300,000,000 people.

Quite a few reasons to be honest. I'll give you the #1 reason being the fact that only on average between 1 and 3,000 people are polled. NewsFlash: We have more than 300 million people in the United States of America. Look at the numbers. Common Sense tells me in No Way can the polls be accurate with such small numbers and that very minimal amount does NOT in No way speak for the bulk. Any Logical thinker would understand that 3,000 people can't think nor speak for the more than 300,000,000 people.

No, of course not. But if they are selected with even reasonable care, they should be quite representative. And, if 3000 people gives a relatively accurate percentage representation, it can be used to make a fairly accurate estimate as to the opinions of 300 million.

That's the whole point of sampling.


Of course, given how many people are still too young to vote, forbidden from voting for some other reason, and how few of the eligible US population actually exercises their voting right... the '300 million' number is almost irrelevent, anyway.

No, because they are not accurate. Polls are very controversial. They may be interesting to look at but they can be misleading, misrepresented, and definately not accurate.

Nobody will be able to convince me otherwise that 3,000 people speaks for more than 300,000,000 people.

It depends what you mean by 'accurate'. If you look at most polls, they claim to have something like a 4% plus/minus error margin. 4% makes a difference if the opinion is very closely contested - but makes little or no difference if the slant is greater.

Example - if 4% of the population of our sample set supports 'Issue A', and we allow for the 4% error margin, we can still see that - even allowing for the relative accuracy of sampled sets - 'Issue A' is not likely to be popular with the average American voter.

The Reps and Dems should be disbanded. The Dems are no longer liberal, and the Reps are no longer conservative. They all just shout bullshit, so what we've got are a pair of spin machines yelling that the other side's bullshit is wrong, and theirs is better bullshit. Either way, it's all a big load of bullshit to me.

Heartily, surely?

And if all we're going to get is a "moderate", then I guess that's better than what we have right now...

Err, yes, that's what I meant.

Bottle: By moderate I don't mean in that sense. I'm talking about someone who would be seen as a moderate on an international political scale. Of course in the U.S. that would mean someone rather leftist, which wouldn't bother me a bit.

What I'd REALLY love to see is someone with Vetalia's economic sense on economic issues and my position on social issues(If it doesn't directly harm another person, let it be legal) and all that jazz, but there's no way this country would ever elect a person that intelligent.

Quite a few reasons to be honest. I'll give you the #1 reason being the fact that only on average between 1 and 3,000 people are polled. NewsFlash: We have more than 300 million people in the United States of America. Look at the numbers. Common Sense tells me in No Way can the polls be accurate with such small numbers and that very minimal amount does NOT in No way speak for the bulk. Any Logical thinker would understand that 3,000 people can't think nor speak for the more than 300,000,000 people.

Well 3000 people obviously won't represent perfectly the opinions of 300million. But they are representative within a certain margin of error. Which is why the polls are useful, you can survey a smallish group of people who, if sampled correctly, will be representative of a much larger group of people.

Well 3000 people obviously won't represent perfectly the opinions of 300million. But they are representative within a certain margin of error. Which is why the polls are useful, you can survey a smallish group of people who, if sampled correctly, will be representative of a much larger group of people.

Exactly. You can't exactly ask everyone about everything, at all times... so you try to find a representative group.

It's not the clumsy science that some seem to think it... one only has to look at the effectiveness of consumer 'market research' to see everyday real-world application of the principle, and verification of it's effectiveness.

Quite a few reasons to be honest. I'll give you the #1 reason being the fact that only on average between 1 and 3,000 people are polled. NewsFlash: We have more than 300 million people in the United States of America. Look at the numbers. Common Sense tells me in No Way can the polls be accurate with such small numbers and that very minimal amount does NOT in No way speak for the bulk. Any Logical thinker would understand that 3,000 people can't think nor speak for the more than 300,000,000 people.

Sampling of 3000 people can represent an accurateview of 300 millions easily. Heck, you'd need about half of those for a good picture.

Anybody who's done a bit of study into polling and/or sampling will tell you that the 3000 mark gives you a good margin of error and that further lowring that margin of error takes exponentially more people. In order to lower the margin of error from 4% to 3%, you'd need to poll around 150 000 people instead of 3 000.

So, as far as inaccuracy goes, polls are more accurate than the expiry date on you milk carton.

Bottle: By moderate I don't mean in that sense. I'm talking about someone who would be seen as a moderate on an international political scale. Of course in the U.S. that would mean someone rather leftist, which wouldn't bother me a bit.

It sure would be terrific to have an ACTUAL moderate elected, if only because of how shocked Americans would be to see what real moderates are like.


What I'd REALLY love to see is someone with Vetalia's economic sense on economic issues and my position on social issues(If it doesn't directly harm another person, let it be legal) and all that jazz, but there's no way this country would ever elect a person that intelligent.
Sounds like an improvement to me! :D

The Patriot act allows warantless wiretaps, and was allowed and ratified by the legislative body (congress),

No, it doesn't.

On the other hand, the Constitution never expressly prohibits wiretapping or spying upon private citizens. Everyone who claims that to be unconstitutional may need to reread the various amendments. Myself included, because I'm arguing this from memory, not facts. Hang on a sec.

Also... in '08 I don't expect we'll get any particularly radical change. Sure, Bush will be out, and someone equally politicianlike will be in; but getting anyone with as much common sense as NSG's most valued debaters? Probably not.

Well, we fucking told you so, morons. You are getting exactly the president you deserve. Next time you consider letting homophobia and racism dictate your vote, maybe you'll think twice.

What racism? Homophobia, religious tensions with Islam...those I can see. But where's the racism?

What racism? Homophobia, religious tensions with Islam...those I can see. But where's the racism?

There appears to be a lot of anti-Hispanic, anti-Arabic, and occasionally anti-Black racism (the first and last primarily in the Bible Belt and Mexican border amongst whites, the second in general). Of course, I haven't seen it firsthand, so I could be wrong. This is just from reports.

What racism? Homophobia, religious tensions with Islam...those I can see. But where's the racism?
The "religious tensions" are often nothing more than a thin cover for racism. The panic over immigration is frequently about the hordes of brown people sweeping across the borders to take over our nice white country. Even economic topics get mixed in with racism, since the "welfare queen" and similar characters are virtually always portrayed as people of color.

There appears to be a lot of anti-Hispanic, anti-Arabic, and occasionally anti-Black racism (the first and last primarily in the Bible Belt and Mexican border amongst whites, the second in general). Of course, I haven't seen it firsthand, so I could be wrong. This is just from reports.

Living in the Bible Belt, I can vouch for encountering just such 'issues' as political motivators on a pretty-much daily basis. Even down to Republicans saying that they would rather vote for Ms. Clinton than Ms. Rice (should such a contest take place), because everything would go to heck if they 'let one of them get in'.

The "religious tensions" are often nothing more than a thin cover for racism. The panic over immigration is frequently about the hordes of brown people sweeping across the borders to take over our nice white country. Even economic topics get mixed in with racism, since the "welfare queen" and similar characters are virtually always portrayed as people of color.

Actually, racism in America is a tool used by the rich in class warfare to get the poor to fight amongst themselves.

Oh, there I go, bringing class into it again!

No, because they are not accurate. Polls are very controversial. They may be interesting to look at but they can be misleading, misrepresented, and definately not accurate.

Nobody will be able to convince me otherwise that 3,000 people speaks for more than 300,000,000 people.

to jump in on your side for a moment...

there are crappy polls out there. there are scientific polls and non scientific polls. there are polls done by independant groups and polls done by partisan groups. if we just view them all as news or entertainment we are doing a disservice to the very idea of statistics.

the nonscientific polls are done just to gauge how many people are listening to a tv/radio program or reading a particular newspaper/magazine. they ask you to call in your yes or no vote then they report how it turned out. it is in no way accurate.

in election season, the various parties and candidates do their own polling. it can be suspicious because they have a stake in how it turns out. without rigorous methodology all they have is a publicity tool that makes their guys look more popular than they are.

with independant scientific polling, you still have the problem of methodology. its a science. sometimes a scientific poll can be done badly. just like any science, if you dont do it right, you dont get good results. to judge the value of any poll you have to understand scientific polling then check their methodology. how did they pick the respondants? what were the questions? who did the actual polling? if you have a need to rely on the poll's accuracy, you must check how it was done. personally, i sometimes find myself wondering what the question was when i see reported results in the newspaper.

i get called for polls a few times a year and i have never felt that the questions were slanted or that the poll taker was trying to suggest a certain response.

if you dont believe in statistics, there isnt much to be done about you. polling IS accurate if done properly. if its not done properly, its crap.

Living in the Bible Belt, I can vouch for encountering just such 'issues' as political motivators on a pretty-much daily basis. Even down to Republicans saying that they would rather vote for Ms. Clinton than Ms. Rice (should such a contest take place), because everything would go to heck if they 'let one of them get in'.

And people wonder why I can't stand my southern relatives...

But yes, the racism is mostly inherent in the immigration debate that randomly flared up only because the Republicans decided they needed something to take attention away from the Iraqi War. No one had actually cared on a national scale about immigration for YEARS until that happened. Now it's "ebil Mexicans" this and "taking our jobs!" that.

Of course, Katrina revealed a lot of racism inherent even in many news sources. I can remember several different sources talking about white people "finding" bread and other food in stores while black people were "looting" those stores of the same items.

The "religious tensions" are often nothing more than a thin cover for racism. The panic over immigration is frequently about the hordes of brown people sweeping across the borders to take over our nice white country. Even economic topics get mixed in with racism, since the "welfare queen" and similar characters are virtually always portrayed as people of color.

Um...even the most Nazi-esque neo-cons I've talked to (and there are plenty around where I live) are concerned about "Islam" and "Muslims" rather than Arabs in general. On occasion it's obviously or even subtly a cover for racism, but that's hardly the majority.

On the immigration issue, I'll just say that from my experience living in Texas, racism is only an issue for a minority of folks. Most Texans seem to enjoy the immigrant cultures and want to learn their language, drink their tequila ;) , etc. The racism seems to be more of a problem in places like the Midwest (where I currently live) and parts of the South where racism against black folks is already entrenched.

So while I do see that racism is affecting political stances, it's not doing so in a significant enough way to account for Bush being elected, particularly given that the Democratic candidate wasn't offering significantly more pro-immigration policies as an alternative. And even where there is racism, it's often overshadowed by folks' stances on abortion or gay marriage, which were the issues people like my (very normal American conservative) parents voted for Bush on.

I think racism would only become a major issue in the Presidential election where a person of color was a leading candidate.

As far as the "welfare queen" bit goes, well yes that's often portrayed as a person of color. That's probably because institutionalized racism in the US has led to the economic disparities between the average white person and the average person of color, so we have more of them needing it. We are, quite literally, paying for the sins of our fathers.

Actually, racism in America is a tool used by the rich in class warfare to get the poor to fight amongst themselves.

Oh, there I go, bringing class into it again!
That's probably true in a whole lot of cases.

Um...even the most Nazi-esque neo-cons I've talked to (and there are plenty around where I live) are concerned about "Islam" and "Muslims" rather than Arabs in general. On occasion it's obviously or even subtly a cover for racism, but that's hardly the majority.

On the immigration issue, I'll just say that from my experience living in Texas, racism is only an issue for a minority of folks. Most Texans seem to enjoy the immigrant cultures and want to learn their language, drink their tequila ;) , etc. The racism seems to be more of a problem in places like the Midwest (where I currently live) and parts of the South where racism against black folks is already entrenched.

So while I do see that racism is affecting political stances, it's not doing so in a significant enough way to account for Bush being elected, particularly given that the Democratic candidate wasn't offering significantly more pro-immigration policies as an alternative. And even where there is racism, it's often overshadowed by folks' stances on abortion or gay marriage, which were the issues people like my (very normal American conservative) parents voted for Bush on.

I think racism would only become a major issue in the Presidential election where a person of color was a leading candidate.

As far as the "welfare queen" bit goes, well yes that's often portrayed as a person of color. That's probably because institutionalized racism in the US has led to the economic disparities between the average white person and the average person of color, so we have more of them needing it. We are, quite literally, paying for the sins of our fathers.
I stand by what I said. Racism was one of the bigotry-grounded elements that helped to get the Bush administration re-elected. This doesn't mean that I think the majority of Americans are racist, just that racism is a part of many of the heated debate topics today. It is one element among many.

I stand by what I said. Racism was one of the bigotry-grounded elements that helped to get the Bush administration re-elected. This doesn't mean that I think the majority of Americans are racist, just that racism is a part of many of the heated debate topics today. It is one element among many.

While that may be true, it also doesn't change the fact that there are millions of militant Islamic types (NOT ALL MUSLIMS MIND YOU) who want to kill us all.

Actually, racism in America is a tool used by the rich in class warfare to get the poor to fight amongst themselves.

Oh, there I go, bringing class into it again!
HALP HALP, I'm being oppressed! :D


That's probably true in a whole lot of cases.
in alot of cases I would agree, but also Racism is used by the poor as an exscuse as to why they are poor.

While that may be true, it also doesn't change the fact that there are millions of militant Islamic types (NOT ALL MUSLIMS MIND YOU) who want to kill us all.
Meh. I'm a non-hetero non-male atheist who supports the right to abortion, opposes organized superstition, and believes that consensual adult sex is fine and dandy no matter who is involved. Pretty much every religion includes people who want to kill me.

I stand by what I said. Racism was one of the bigotry-grounded elements that helped to get the Bush administration re-elected. This doesn't mean that I think the majority of Americans are racist, just that racism is a part of many of the heated debate topics today. It is one element among many.

Sure, it's an element, and an important one. Hell, race and gender issues are something I spend alot of time considering because it tends to impact our society far more than most people think.

I just don't think racism was contributing in any significant way to Bush getting elected. I think there were plenty of other bad reasons for that, mainly homophobia and religious bigotry.

And unlike you, I do think that the majority of Americans are racist. I just don't think it's a major part of their political thought anymore.

Sampling of 3000 people can represent an accurateview of 300 millions easily. Heck, you'd need about half of those for a good picture.

Anybody who's done a bit of study into polling and/or sampling will tell you that the 3000 mark gives you a good margin of error and that further lowring that margin of error takes exponentially more people. In order to lower the margin of error from 4% to 3%, you'd need to poll around 150 000 people instead of 3 000.

So, as far as inaccuracy goes, polls are more accurate than the expiry date on you milk carton.
Margin of error on a random sample of 1000 people at 99% confidence interva is 3.16%
MoE on 3000 people is 1.82%
MoE on 150000 people is 0.258%

As you increase the number of people, the MoE doesn't drop that much. Which is why they invariably use 1000 for their sample. It's cost-effective and pretty damn accurate.

With the last Bush's approval ratings poll, zogby used 982 people.
At 99% CI, we use the following equation:
standard error=http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/3/a/73a9acf851e5c9fe3cdfcf52a1612cd0.png
where p=30% (GWB approval %) and n=982.
which gives us a standard error of 1.46% (0.0146). Thus we can say with 99% confidence that between 28.5 and 31.5% of Americans approve of GWB.

To me, that's good enough to accept.
Also, it's not just one poll. Every damn poll has him hovering in the low 30s.


expiry dates are another statistic altogether. They work out what the lowest amount of time that the milk will spoil by then to a 99% probability. They use the lowest to avoid getting themselves sued by idiots who don't sniff their weeks-old milk before chugging it back.
That's why you invariably find milk still drinkable days after the expiry date.
They're not lousy with their dating, they're just being extremely cautious.
I do find it funny that so many expiry dates now have down to the minute though. I half expect the carton to catch fire or explode the very second after the expiry date.

Margin of error on a random sample of 1000 people at 99% confidence interva is 3.16%
MoE on 3000 people is 1.82%
MoE on 150000 people is 0.258%

As you increase the number of people, the MoE doesn't drop that much. Which is why they invariably use 1000 for their sample. It's cost-effective and pretty damn accurate.

With the last Bush's approval ratings poll, zogby used 982 people.
At 99% CI, we use the following equation:
standard error=http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/3/a/73a9acf851e5c9fe3cdfcf52a1612cd0.png
where p=30% (GWB approval %) and n=982.
which gives us a standard error of 1.46% (0.0146). Thus we can say with 99% confidence that between 28.5 and 31.5% of Americans approve of GWB.

To me, that's good enough to accept.
Also, it's not just one poll. Every damn poll has him hovering in the low 30s.


expiry dates are another statistic altogether. They work out what the lowest amount of time that the milk will spoil by then to a 99% probability. They use the lowest to avoid getting themselves sued by idiots who don't sniff their weeks-old milk before chugging it back.
That's why you invariably find milk still drinkable days after the expiry date.
They're not lousy with their dating, they're just being extremely cautious.
I do find it funny that so many expiry dates now have down to the minute though. I have expect the carton to catch fire or explode the very second after the expiry date.


Just got through looking at a study where the people "chosen" for the sample turned out not to be so "random". It was a sample of 1000 people.

I'd like to see who they choose, and how they choose them, and how these people compare with the demographics of the US population.

For starters, people at my church for years have decided (together) never to answer any surveys or polls - whether at polling places, voting sites, phone surveys, web surveys, or anything else. I've been to more than one church where we've decided to do this.

So for starters, we're not in the Zogby sample. Does that mean we're not represented? Maybe. You can't tell me one way or the other because you don't know how many people have decided to tell surveys to fuck off.

Margin of error on a random sample of 1000 people at 99% confidence interva is 3.16%
MoE on 3000 people is 1.82%
MoE on 150000 people is 0.258%

As you increase the number of people, the MoE doesn't drop that much. Which is why they invariably use 1000 for their sample. It's cost-effective and pretty damn accurate.

With the last Bush's approval ratings poll, zogby used 982 people.
At 99% CI, we use the following equation:
standard error=http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/3/a/73a9acf851e5c9fe3cdfcf52a1612cd0.png
where p=30% (GWB approval %) and n=982.
which gives us a standard error of 1.46% (0.0146). Thus we can say with 99% confidence that between 28.5 and 31.5% of Americans approve of GWB.

To me, that's good enough to accept.
Also, it's not just one poll. Every damn poll has him hovering in the low 30s.


expiry dates are another statistic altogether. They work out what the lowest amount of time that the milk will spoil by then to a 99% probability. They use the lowest to avoid getting themselves sued by idiots who don't sniff their weeks-old milk before chugging it back.
That's why you invariably find milk still drinkable days after the expiry date.
They're not lousy with their dating, they're just being extremely cautious.
I do find it funny that so many expiry dates now have down to the minute though. I have expect the carton to catch fire or explode the very second after the expiry date.

There he goes, showing the error of my randomly chosen numbers...
Anyways, the gist of it is that a low number of people can show what a big number of people think if the low number of people is representative.

As for dating milk, any number of variables can play withthe expiry ranging from the amount of time you let it sit on the table at breakfast to the temperature of your fridge. So don't think expiry date as set in stone.

Okay, I'm going to disect this USA Today's Poll to make it more understanding and to allow the facts of the number crunching to attempt to prove my point on the inaccuracy: (I copied from the USA Today Poll, the Bold print will be my factual figures)

Some details from the poll of 1,003 adults (margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points): hmmm...1,003 adults of more than 217.8 million adults (according to 2003 US Census Bureau Estimates) Nationwide...what a tremendous difference. :rolleyes: Note: I'm including the +/- 3% in the numbers below in bold. :)

• 47% said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq, vs. 50% who said that before Bush's speech. 441.32-501.5 adults said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq (so 441.32-501.5 adults speaks for the 102.366 million people, very interesting.) vs. 471.41-531.59 adults speak for the more than 102.366 million adults...okay, if you say so. :rolleyes:

• 49% said it is "unlikely" the U.S. will win or "certain" it will not, vs. 46% who said that before Bush's speech. 461.38-521.56 adults speaks for more than 100.188 adults...since when? :confused: vs. 431.29-491.47 adults who said the above before the speech, Interesting Indeed... :rolleyes:

• 29% said the president does have a "clear plan" for handling the situation in Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech. 206.78-320.96 adults voices equal that of more than 56.628 million adults vs the 220.66-280.84 adults speaks for more than 47.916 million adults. Likely? :rolleyes:

• 69% said the president does not have a "clear plan," vs. 72% who said that before the speech. So, 661.98-722.16 adults of more than 143.748 million said the president doesn't have a "clear plan" blah blah blah...vs 692.07-752.25 of more than 150.282 million adults in the Nation before the speech, this really is accurate info... :rolleyes:

• 21% said Democrats in Congress have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech. 180.54-240.72 adults speak for more than 39.204 million adults vs 220.66-280.84 of more than 47.916 million adults before before the speech.

• 75% said Democrats in Congress do not have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 66% who said that before the speech. 722.16-782.34 of more than 156.816 million vs the 631.89-692.07 adults polled of more than 137.214 million adults nation

• Bush's overall "approval rating" stood at 34%, vs. 37% before the speech. 310.93-371.11 adults of more than 67.518 million adults vs 341.02-401.2 adults of more than 74.052 million adults...Now this is truly accurate info and represents the voice of the Nation's adult population, wow some more than 310 strong individual voices... :p okay, if you say so... :rolleyes:

• The percentage who said they disapprove of Bush's performance as president was 63%, vs. 59% before the speech. Finally, 601.8-661.98 individual adults of more than 130.68 million adults in the nation disapprove vs 561.68-621.86 individual adults polled of more than 121.968 million adults nationwide...give me a break...

Anybody that has a half a brain can Logically and Factually say that 1003 Individual Adults canNOT fairly and truly represent the more than 217.8 million adults nationwide. I really don't understand how some here can defend that a poll like this can be "accurate" what ever happened to Common Sense.

You've got almost two years to let the public forget just how much it hates your frigging guts before you leave office, but we can't forget if you keep reminding us just how much of a douchebag you are. So for all our sakes, President Bush--stay off the teevee. You'll make a large majority of the country happier for it. :D

I don't know why, but I lol'd at this.

Just got through looking at a study where the people "chosen" for the sample turned out not to be so "random". It was a sample of 1000 people.

I'd like to see who they choose, and how they choose them, and how these people compare with the demographics of the US population.

For starters, people at my church for years have decided (together) never to answer any surveys or polls - whether at polling places, voting sites, phone surveys, web surveys, or anything else. I've been to more than one church where we've decided to do this.

So for starters, we're not in the Zogby sample. Does that mean we're not represented? Maybe. You can't tell me one way or the other because you don't know how many people have decided to tell surveys to fuck off.

I actually did market research as a job for a while... there are a couple of things you aren't allowing for.

1) Just because everyone in your church says they don't answer surveys, doesn't make it true. I have had friends who ahd similar 'policy' decisions... but who did answer the market research that their car insurance company asked them, for example.

2) For every person that is likely to be non-committal in your congregation, there is just as likely someone at the 'opposite end' of the spectrum who also withholds their opinion.

3) You are an 'extreme'... and extremes are rarely representative. You would be a blip on a curve, nothing more. And that blip would be smoothed out by the cumulative frequencies, whether or not you answered. Add to which, again, for every extreme at one end, there is a similar extreme at the 'other end'.

It depends what you mean by 'accurate'. If you look at most polls, they claim to have something like a 4% plus/minus error margin. 4% makes a difference if the opinion is very closely contested - but makes little or no difference if the slant is greater.

Example - if 4% of the population of our sample set supports 'Issue A', and we allow for the 4% error margin, we can still see that - even allowing for the relative accuracy of sampled sets - 'Issue A' is not likely to be popular with the average American voter.

ac·cu·rate [ak-yer-it]
–adjective
1. free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.
2. careful or meticulous: an accurate typist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accurate

I didn't realize how many different meanings the word "accurate" had...

Just got through looking at a study where the people "chosen" for the sample turned out not to be so "random". It was a sample of 1000 people.

I'd like to see who they choose, and how they choose them, and how these people compare with the demographics of the US population.

For starters, people at my church for years have decided (together) never to answer any surveys or polls - whether at polling places, voting sites, phone surveys, web surveys, or anything else. I've been to more than one church where we've decided to do this.

So for starters, we're not in the Zogby sample. Does that mean we're not represented? Maybe. You can't tell me one way or the other because you don't know how many people have decided to tell surveys to fuck off.
I know someone who can tell you - and that's Zogby themselves. Go ask them what their methodology is. They have it on their website and I'm sure if they contacted you they'll be happy to explain to you the whys, whats and wherefores of their pollings. They may even explain so simply even an idiot could understand.
I mean, it's not like zogby, who's sole purpose is to make money from polling, has a financial interest in ensuring that their data is accurate.:rolleyes:


So instead of blindly ignoring reality that: Yes, people hate your Dear Leader and squealing that polls based on a couple hundred years of statistical analysis which has been carefully thought out, applied, repeatedly verified and completely accepted by every statistical scientist out there is wrong because they didn't ask you what you thought (poor baby!) and that it tells you things you don't like/want to hear, try doing a liddul bit of research into statistical analysis and what it actually entails.

I recommend wolfram mathematics website. But that's only cause I think it's really cool.

Okay, I'm going to disect this USA Today's Poll to make it more understanding and to allow the facts of the number crunching to attempt to prove my point on the inaccuracy: (I copied from the USA Today Poll, the Bold print will be my factual figures)

...

Anybody that has a half a brain can Logically and Factually say that 1003 Individual Adults canNOT fairly and truly represent the more than 217.8 million adults nationwide. I really don't understand how some here can defend that a poll like this can be "accurate" what ever happened to Common Sense.

I'm not sure where you are going with this... your argument seems to be "Waaah! It ain't true cos I don't want it to be..."

Please, explain?

So, Bush is so bad, he can't even sweet-talk the American public via their favorite medium? Wow...MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ELECTED HIM. AGAIN.

I didn't, but then again, I don't do a lot of stupid things that the rest of the American public apparently does. Funny how that works.

Okay, I'm going to disect this USA Today's Poll to make it more understanding and to allow the facts of the number crunching to attempt to prove my point on the inaccuracy: (I copied from the USA Today Poll, the Bold print will be my factual figures)

Some details from the poll of 1,003 adults (margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points): hmmm...1,003 adults of more than 217.8 million adults (according to 2003 US Census Bureau Estimates) Nationwide...what a tremendous difference. :rolleyes: Note: I'm including the +/- 3% in the numbers below in bold. :)

• 47% said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq, vs. 50% who said that before Bush's speech. 441.32-501.5 adults said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq (so 441.32-501.5 adults speaks for the 102.366 million people, very interesting.) vs. 471.41-531.59 adults speak for the more than 102.366 million adults...okay, if you say so. :rolleyes:

• 49% said it is "unlikely" the U.S. will win or "certain" it will not, vs. 46% who said that before Bush's speech. 461.38-521.56 adults speaks for more than 100.188 adults...since when? :confused: vs. 431.29-491.47 adults who said the above before the speech, Interesting Indeed... :rolleyes:

• 29% said the president does have a "clear plan" for handling the situation in Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech. 206.78-320.96 adults voices equal that of more than 56.628 million adults vs the 220.66-280.84 adults speaks for more than 47.916 million adults. Likely? :rolleyes:

• 69% said the president does not have a "clear plan," vs. 72% who said that before the speech. So, 661.98-722.16 adults of more than 143.748 million said the president doesn't have a "clear plan" blah blah blah...vs 692.07-752.25 of more than 150.282 million adults in the Nation before the speech, this really is accurate info... :rolleyes:

• 21% said Democrats in Congress have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech. 180.54-240.72 adults speak for more than 39.204 million adults vs 220.66-280.84 of more than 47.916 million adults before before the speech.

• 75% said Democrats in Congress do not have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 66% who said that before the speech. 722.16-782.34 of more than 156.816 million vs the 631.89-692.07 adults polled of more than 137.214 million adults nation

• Bush's overall "approval rating" stood at 34%, vs. 37% before the speech. 310.93-371.11 adults of more than 67.518 million adults vs 341.02-401.2 adults of more than 74.052 million adults...Now this is truly accurate info and represents the voice of the Nation's adult population, wow some more than 310 strong individual voices... :p okay, if you say so... :rolleyes:

• The percentage who said they disapprove of Bush's performance as president was 63%, vs. 59% before the speech. Finally, 601.8-661.98 individual adults of more than 130.68 million adults in the nation disapprove vs 561.68-621.86 individual adults polled of more than 121.968 million adults nationwide...give me a break...

Anybody that has a half a brain can Logically and Factually say that 1003 Individual Adults canNOT fairly and truly represent the more than 217.8 million adults nationwide. I really don't understand how some here can defend that a poll like this can be "accurate" what ever happened to Common Sense.

That's why there is a margin of error. Polling is a science and it's accuracy and error margins have been proven time and time again. If you did your own poll you'd get the same results +/- 3%. If you polled 10,000 peaple, 100,000 people or 1 million people you'd find that most people really don't like this president.

I know someone who can tell you - and that's Zogby themselves. Go ask them what their methodology is. They have it on their website and I'm sure if they contacted you they'll be happy to explain to you the whys, whats and wherefores of their pollings. They may even explain so simply even an idiot could understand.
I mean, it's not like zogby, who's sole purpose is to make money from polling, has a financial interest in ensuring that their data is accurate.:rolleyes:


Consider how badly he fucked up the exit polls two elections in a row.

ac·cu·rate [ak-yer-it]
–adjective
1. free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.
2. careful or meticulous: an accurate typist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accurate

I didn't realize how many different meanings the word "accurate" had...

As a scientist, I can tell you that 'accurate' and 'precise' actually mean very different things... so much for 'lay' definitions.

What is your point?

Anybody that has a half a brain can Logically and Factually say that 1003 Individual Adults canNOT fairly and truly represent the more than 217.8 million adults nationwide. I really don't understand how some here can defend that a poll like this can be "accurate" what ever happened to Common Sense.

Since I don't like the inferrence that I have less than half a brain, I'll respond in kind:

Anybody what used half his brain while reading this poll will see that accuracy is within a margin of error. See, they accounted for the fact that they didn't ask everybody. IT is representative of the general opinion of the population, whether you like it or not.

Common Sense would tell you that if you don'T like a poll result, it's not necessarily because the poll was done badly. Common Sense would tell you that if everybody yells fire, there'S a good chance there is a fire. Now replace "fire" with "Bush is bad" and you'll get what this poll says to those with the Common Sense to listen.

As a scientist, I can tell you that 'accurate' and 'precise' actually mean very different things... so much for 'lay' definitions.

What is your point?

Yeah, this has gotten a little too concerned with minutae.

Since I don't like the inferrence that I have less than half a brain, I'll respond in kind:

Anybody what used half his brain while reading this poll will see that accuracy is within a margin of error. See, they accounted for the fact that they didn't ask everybody. IT is representative of the general opinion of the population, whether you like it or not.

Common Sense would tell you that if you don'T like a poll result, it's not necessarily because the poll was done badly. Common Sense would tell you that if everybody yells fire, there'S a good chance there is a fire. Now replace "fire" with "Bush is bad" and you'll get what this poll says to those with the Common Sense to listen.

Common sense would tell you that since Zogby can't get an exit poll correct, he's probably not going to get too much else right, either.

Anybody that has a half a brain can Logically and Factually say that 1003 Individual Adults canNOT fairly and truly represent the more than 217.8 million adults nationwide. I really don't understand how some here can defend that a poll like this can be "accurate" what ever happened to Common Sense.
Yep. Anyone with half a brain can say that.

Anyone with a complete working brain and even the most basic understanding of statistical analysis will know that 1003 people of voting age randomly chosen throughout the USA according to population distribution is more than accurate enough to give quick snapshot of public opinion.
Before you get your panties into any more of a twist, enrol in a statistical analysis course. It'll enrich your knowledge and stop you looking so foolish spouting on about things you obviously have no idea about.
I mean, not one fucking clue.



I find it hilarious how the neo-Bushites are squealing that the polls are wrong. I bet these self-same ones were only too happy to trumpet his massive popularity according to the same polling companies that he enjoyed just after 9/11.
Of course the polls were accurate then, weren't they?

Fox news polls show him with a sub 40% approval rating, too. Even Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh admit he's not well liked.

I'm not sure where you are going with this... your argument seems to be "Waaah! It ain't true cos I don't want it to be..."

Please, explain?

When I first posted a reply to this topic I basicly said that the polls are NOT "accurate". I 100% stand by my statements about Polls NOT being "accurate"...First red flag was the +/-3% this indicates the fact that their are errors. Therefore this particular poll is NOT "accurate". 2nd red flag is the extremely small number of adults being polled (1003 adults) do you realize what the actual percentage of that is to the total number of adults in our Large Nation is...It makes my head hurt just to think about figuring the exact percentage out so I'll tell you this... 1% of 217.8 million adults equals 2,178,000 adults compared to 1003 adults polled (Reminder: this 217.8 million adults number comes from the 2003 US Census estimates so obviously the number is substantially greater).

Bottom Line: All I was debating was the "accuracy" of this poll and other posters came back to dispute this. I think that I have proven my point on how "accurate" these polls are.

Common sense would tell you that since Zogby can't get an exit poll correct, he's probably not going to get too much else right, either.
Mind giving details of said exit poll?
While you at it, mind finding the following out for me:
How inaccurate was it?
What were the reasons behind the inaccuracy?
How many polls has zogby conducted?
How many have been shown to be grossly inaccurate?
What were the reasons behind these polls being wrong?

Or is doing research too difficult for you? Much rather just make shit up, wouldn't you? A lot easier that way I guess.

Incidently, in the 2000 US Presidential elections the closest pollster was (surprise suprise) Zogby.
Zogby final poll had 48% Gore and 47% Bush
Final result was 48.4% Gore and 47.9% Bush
OMG!! That is such crap polling!

As for the 2004 exit polls fiasco here's a very ineteresting article about it:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Fox news polls show him with a sub 40% approval rating, too. Even Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh admit he's not well liked.

I'm not arguing that Bush is well liked - hell, it should be obvious without a poll that people don't like the things he's doing.

I'm arguing that Zogby in particular is a shit pollster.

Bottom Line: All I was debating was the "accuracy" of this poll and other posters came back to dispute this. I think that I have proven my point on how "accurate" these polls are.
All you've proven is that you don't understand how statistics work. Educate thyself, King Bodacious. I know that might be a difficult thing for you to do, seeing as how you're a stubborn person who hates it when facts show his opinion--based on nothing but personal intutition--is wrong, but you really should.

When I first posted a reply to this topic I basicly said that the polls are NOT "accurate". I 100% stand by my statements about Polls NOT being "accurate"...First red flag was the +/-3% this indicates the fact that their are errors. Therefore this particular poll is NOT "accurate". 2nd red flag is the extremely small number of adults being polled (1003 adults) do you realize what the actual percentage of that is to the total number of adults in our Large Nation is...It makes my head hurt just to think about figuring the exact percentage out so I'll tell you this... 1% of 217.8 million adults equals 2,178,000 adults compared to 1003 adults polled (Reminder: this 217.8 million adults number comes from the 2003 US Census estimates so obviously the number is substantially greater).

Bottom Line: All I was debating was the "accuracy" of this poll and other posters came back to dispute this. I think that I have proven my point on how "accurate" these polls are.

But you are wrong. The polls are accurate.

The fact that the margin of error is so small, means they are extremely accurate.

As I pointed out earlier, the margin of error is only really important if we are talking tied votes... 50% of the populatin seem to say one thing 50% another... and the outcome must matter.

On the other hand - if 60% of the population think Bush is a klutz, the =/- 4% is almost irrelevent, since clearly there is more 'Bush is a klutz' sentiment than the opposite.

You seem to think that the numbers are somehow inherently wrong because of the number of people... but that is a mistaken idea.

If you interview 100 people, and 90 say Bush is a klutz... you could estimate (very loosely) that 90% of the population thinks that, too - especially if your sampling is good.

If you interview 300 people, and 270 say that Bush is a klutz... you can estimate (slightly more confidently) that 90% of the population feels the same way.

If you interview 3000 people, and 2700 say that Bush is a klutz, you can start to have some real confidence in that figure.


Obviously, the only way to get an accurate number is by personal referendum - but one can get a fairly close estimate through sampling.

All you've proven is that you don't understand how statistics work. Educate thyself, King Bodacious. I know that might be a difficult thing for you to do, seeing as how you're a stubborn person who hates it when facts show his opinion--based on nothing but personal intutition--is wrong, but you really should.

So you're saying that Zogby's exit polls were accurate? ROFLCOPTER.

NOTE: I would like to apologize to everybody for the "half a brain" comment I stated earlier. It was out of line and unnecessary and for that I do sincerely apologize.

Grave n Idle: Thanks for informing me that scientists have their own meanings for "accurate"...I was unaware.

For the Record: I have done a little research regarding polls, statistics, and the likes. Polls are very controversial and is highly debated on both sides of the ball. I still stand by my statement of how this poll is NOT "accurate" I also stand by the actual definition of the word "accurate" I'm not debating the issue of whether President Bush is popular/unpopular. In fact, I'm sure he is most likely unpopular right now considering the facts of the unpopular war in Iraq and the fact of the past election when the Democrats to the majority of seats.

I also think to use polls of where only 1003 adults were polled is not a good way to start a debate considering the fact that their are well more than 217.8 million adults across our Great Nation.

Bottom Line: All I was debating was the "accuracy" of this poll and other posters came back to dispute this. I think that I have proven my point on how "accurate" these polls are.
No you haven't. All you've proven is that:
1. You haven't got the faintest idea as to statistical analysis;
2. You haven't bothered to read any posts explaining it to you because you just want to stay ignorant. Facing to the reality that these polls are valid means also facing up to the reality that GWB is not a good president and, in addition, you've wasted 6 years supporting an idiot in the whitehouse who has made the US worse not better.
Cognitive dissonance has obviously kicked in and is preventing you from accepting this, so you do the obvious: attack the messenger.

Last attempt at educating you:
Here is an article about CI and MoE in very very simple terms:
http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml

And here's a wiki article on it that also explains it in layman's terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

Here's a handy MoE calculator:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html

Try actually reading those. And if you still don;t understand email these guys:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/

And be sure to tell them you don't have a fucking clue about stats.

No you haven't. All you've proven is that:
1. You haven't got the faintest idea as to statistical analysis;
2. You haven't bothered to read any posts explaining it to you because you just want to stay ignorant. Facing to the reality that these polls are valid means also facing up to the reality that GWB is not a good president and, in addition, you've wasted 6 years supporting an idiot in the whitehouse who has made the US worse not better.
Cognitive dissonance has obviously kicked in and is preventing you from accepting this, so you do the obvious: attack the messenger.

Last attempt at educating you:
Here is an article about CI and MoE in very very simple terms:
http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml

And here's a wiki article on it that also explains it in layman's terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

Here's a handy MoE calculator:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html

Try actually reading those. And if you still don;t understand email these guys:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/

And be sure to tell them you don't have a fucking clue about stats.

You have a lot of misplaced faith in Zogby.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10294

Sure, Bush isn't a good President. But Zogby is a clueless idiot.

So you're saying that Zogby's exit polls were accurate? ROFLCOPTER.

Exit polls are not necessarily 'representative'... that is why it is not an ideal sampling method. Thus, exit polls might be more likely to throw non-characteristic results.

I'm arguing that Zogby in particular is a shit pollster.
No you're not. An argument is backed up with facts and research.

I fail to see how 'I think Zogby is shit' is an argument.
It's a statement of opinion without any substance thus far provided to support your claim.

You're just being argumentative.

No you're not. An argument is backed up with facts and research.

I fail to see how 'I think Zogby is shit' is an argument.
It's a statement of opinion without any substance thus far provided to support your claim.

You're just being argumentative.

He says it himself:

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10294

NOTE: I would like to apologize to everybody for the "half a brain" comment I stated earlier. It was out of line and unnecessary and for that I do sincerely apologize.

Grave n Idle: Thanks for informing me that scientists have their own meanings for "accurate"...I was unaware.

For the Record: I have done a little research regarding polls, statistics, and the likes. Polls are very controversial and is highly debated on both sides of the ball. I still stand by my statement of how this poll is NOT "accurate" I also stand by the actual definition of the word "accurate" I'm not debating the issue of whether President Bush is popular/unpopular. In fact, I'm sure he is most likely unpopular right now considering the facts of the unpopular war in Iraq and the fact of the past election when the Democrats to the majority of seats.

I also think to use polls of where only 1003 adults were polled is not a good way to start a debate considering the fact that their are well more than 217.8 million adults across our Great Nation.

Statistics is a scientific discipline... thus the 'actual definition' would be the scientific one.

As has been pointed out, however, there is nothing wrong with citing 1003 results as the basis for a statistic.... if the sample is representative.

Example - if you picked a perfectly representative group of 1003 people, and found out that 52% of them were women... what percentage of the adult population of the US would you expect might own a uterus?

You have a lot of misplaced faith in Zogby.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10294

Sure, Bush isn't a good President. But Zogby is a clueless idiot.
You mean this bit,
"pre-election public polls that showed Bush with a small but definite lead over Kerry of 1 to 3 percentage points. That turned out to be right on the money, a victory for the pollsters' often-criticized art."
shows Zogby is a clueless idiot?
How exactly?

As for the exit polls, read the article I posted earlier.

At any rate, this wasn't an argument about one particular poll. It was about how all polls are somehow wrong.
The last 5 polls (by CNN, Gallup, Zogby, CBS and AP-Ipsos) have Bush's approval rating between 30 and 35%.
In other words, all within the margin of error (3.16%) for 32% approval rating.
That's approx 5000 people interviewed.

I'd say that means that figure is a pretty damn accurate snapshot of public opinion.

Anybody that has a half a brain can Logically and Factually say that 1003 Individual Adults canNOT fairly and truly represent the more than 217.8 million adults nationwide. I really don't understand how some here can defend that a poll like this can be "accurate" what ever happened to Common Sense.

Us logical, factual people who have common sense understand how statistics work. I will thank you not to speak for us.

You mean this bit, "pre-election public polls that showed Bush with a small but definite lead over Kerry of 1 to 3 percentage points. That turned out to be right on the money, a victory for the pollsters' often-criticized art."
shows Zogby is a clueless idiot?
How exactly?

As for the exit polls, read the article I posted earlier.

Like this:

"I don't know," said pollster John Zogby, who relied partially on exit polls Tuesday afternoon to declare Kerry the winner in Ohio. "I'm not blaming everything on the exit polls, but the exit polls were terrible."

So you're saying that Zogby's exit polls were accurate? ROFLCOPTER.

No, and I'd thank you to not act like such an idiot, DK, when we all know you're not. (Deep Kimchi, that was your old name. Forgot it for a while.)

He doesn't understand how statistics and polls in general work. Was the Zogby poll itself truly accurate? Probably not, since it was an exit poll. Does that mean the results should be completely tossed out of hand? No, because they have been backed up by numerous other polls and are still a reasonable conclusion.

Like this:

As already explained... 'exit polls' are not necessarily a representative way to sample. Thus, they need to be considered open to a greater margin of error than a selected representative sample.


Add to that, if Zogby says that the exit polls were non-representative... how does that make him a clueless idiot?

He says it himself:

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10294
Posting something twice doesn't make it twice as important.
And well done on your selective reading ability. I suppose it comes in handy somehow.
You ignore the bit that says the zogby polls before the election were smack on. Why is that?

Of course, having problems in one poll proves every single poll they've ever done is wrong, doesn't it?
Generalise much do you?

No, and I'd thank you to not act like such an idiot, DK, when we all know you're not. (Deep Kimchi, that was your old name. Forgot it for a while.)

I'm not DK. Why don't you ask the mods to verify my IP address?

Bill Schneider, a CNN analyst and former Harvard University political science professor, agreed.

"The lesson here is put not your faith in exit polls ... particularly if the exit poll is close," he said. "Exit polls are designed for analysis. ... They are not very good, nor really is any poll very good, for being an absolute, exact prediction."

If they are not good, then why does Zogby do them and sell them? Why does he make predictions off of them?

Because he's an idiot.

Posting something twice doesn't make it twice as important.
And well done on your selective reading ability. I suppose it comes in handy somehow.
You ignore the bit that says the zogby polls before the election were smack on. Why is that?

Of course, having problems in one poll proves every single poll they've ever done is wrong, doesn't it?
Generalise much do you?

Not once - twice.

"It got on Drudge (Report), it got to the campaigns," Harris said of Tuesday's early exit polls. "You looked at President Bush (Tuesday) morning and he looked sick. Exit polls are a wonderful advantage in providing context and texture. But for trying to make a call, we've learned in two elections in a row that they lead to confusion."

As already explained... 'exit polls' are not necessarily a representative way to sample. Thus, they need to be considered open to a greater margin of error than a selected representative sample.


Add to that, if Zogby says that the exit polls were non-representative... how does that make him a clueless idiot?

Because he made the mistake TWICE.

Looks like he's up to try it again, too.

"There was a time you could go to the bank with the early exit polls," Zogby said. "Now we have a problem."

If they are not good, then why does Zogby do them and sell them? Why does he make predictions off of them?

Because he's an idiot.

If that were the case, it would be the people that paid for the product that were the idiots, not the vendor.

Your blanket refusal to accept that exit-polling is not the best form of sampling is confusing. I've explained it to you, Zogby has explained it as the cause of misleading results, and you just cited another source that claims it. Thus, obviously, exit polls are atypical.

As for why Zogby can continue to thrive on this statistical analysis... quite simply, because it is accurate enough most of the time.

A long article but worth reading as it shows that DK is just talking out of his arse, as usual:
The Exit Polls
The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren't just off the mark -- they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)

Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed. The results are exquisitely accurate: Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent.(17) ''Exit polls are almost never wrong,'' Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ''so reliable,'' he added, ''that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.''(18) In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down.(19) And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine -- paid for by the Bush administration -- exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.(20)

But that same month, when exit polls revealed disturbing disparities in the U.S. election, the six media organizations that had commissioned the survey treated its very existence as an embarrassment. Instead of treating the discrepancies as a story meriting investigation, the networks scrubbed the offending results from their Web sites and substituted them with ''corrected'' numbers that had been weighted, retroactively, to match the official vote count. Rather than finding fault with the election results, the mainstream media preferred to dismiss the polls as flawed.(21)

''The people who ran the exit polling, and all those of us who were their clients, recognized that it was deeply flawed,'' says Tom Brokaw, who served as anchor for NBC News during the 2004 election. ''They were really screwed up -- the old models just don't work anymore. I would not go on the air with them again.''

In fact, the exit poll created for the 2004 election was designed to be the most reliable voter survey in history. The six news organizations -- running the ideological gamut from CBS to Fox News -- retained Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International,(22) whose principal, Warren Mitofsky, pioneered the exit poll for CBS in 1967(23) and is widely credited with assuring the credibility of Mexico's elections in 1994.(24) For its nationwide poll, Edison/Mitofsky selected a random subsample of 12,219 voters(25) -- approximately six times larger than those normally used in national polls(26) -- driving the margin of error down to approximately plus or minus one percent.(27)

On the evening of the vote, reporters at each of the major networks were briefed by pollsters at 7:54 p.m. Kerry, they were informed, had an insurmountable lead and would win by a rout: at least 309 electoral votes to Bush's 174, with fifty-five too close to call.(28) In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair went to bed contemplating his relationship with President-elect Kerry.(29)

As the last polling stations closed on the West Coast, exit polls showed Kerry ahead in ten of eleven battleground states -- including commanding leads in Ohio and Florida -- and winning by a million and a half votes nationally. The exit polls even showed Kerry breathing down Bush's neck in supposed GOP strongholds Virginia and North Carolina.(30) Against these numbers, the statistical likelihood of Bush winning was less than one in 450,000.(31) ''Either the exit polls, by and large, are completely wrong,'' a Fox News analyst declared, ''or George Bush loses.''(32)

But as the evening progressed, official tallies began to show implausible disparities -- as much as 9.5 percent -- with the exit polls. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift favored Bush. Based on exit polls, CNN had predicted Kerry defeating Bush in Ohio by a margin of 4.2 percentage points. Instead, election results showed Bush winning the state by 2.5 percent. Bush also tallied 6.5 percent more than the polls had predicted in Pennsylvania, and 4.9 percent more in Florida.(33)

According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. ''As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,'' he says, ''it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.'' (See The Tale of the Exit Polls)

Puzzled by the discrepancies, Freeman laboriously examined the raw polling data released by Edison/Mitofsky in January 2005. ''I'm not even political -- I despise the Democrats,'' he says. ''I'm a survey expert. I got into this because I was mystified about how the exit polls could have been so wrong.'' In his forthcoming book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count, Freeman lays out a statistical analysis of the polls that is deeply troubling.

In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology -- so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate. According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd(34) -- displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry's favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.(35)

Industry peers didn't buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation's leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky's ''reluctant responder'' hypothesis is ''preposterous.''(36) Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: ''It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.''(37)

Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky's own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters' questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey -- compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) ''The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,'' observes Freeman, ''but actually contradicts it.''

What's more, Freeman found, the greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent -- a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.(39)

''When you look at the numbers, there is a tremendous amount of data that supports the supposition of election fraud,'' concludes Freeman. ''The discrepancies are higher in battleground states, higher where there were Republican governors, higher in states with greater proportions of African-American communities and higher in states where there were the most Election Day complaints. All these are strong indicators of fraud -- and yet this supposition has been utterly ignored by the press and, oddly, by the Democratic Party.''

The evidence is especially strong in Ohio. In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state's exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts -- nearly half of those polled -- they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again -- against all odds -- the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush's favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered ''27,'' in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.(40)

Such results, according to the archive, provide ''virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount.'' The discrepancies, the experts add, ''are consistent with the hypothesis that Kerry would have won Ohio's electoral votes if Ohio's official vote counts had accurately reflected voter intent.''(41) According to Ron Baiman, vice president of the archive and a public policy analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, ''No rigorous statistical explanation'' can explain the ''completely nonrandom'' disparities that almost uniformly benefited Bush. The final results, he adds, are ''completely consistent with election fraud -- specifically vote shifting.'

Because he made the mistake TWICE.

Looks like he's up to try it again, too.

Not at all. Conventionally, exit polls are fine. They are less useful when the parties in question are close enough to fall within the margin of error.

If that were the case, it would be the people that paid for the product that were the idiots, not the vendor.

I'm not someone who pays attention to polls I can't study the details of.

Your blanket refusal to accept that exit-polling is not the best form of sampling is confusing. I've explained it to you, Zogby has explained it as the cause of misleading results, and you just cited another source that claims it. Thus, obviously, exit polls are atypical.

I am not saying that I have a blanket refusal to accept exit polling, or to accept that it's not the best form of sampling.

I AM SAYING THAT UNLESS I CAN SEE ALL OF THE STATISTICAL METHODS AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES USED I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY STATISTICAL POLL OF ANY KIND. PERIOD.

As for why Zogby can continue to thrive on this statistical analysis... quite simply, because it is accurate enough most of the time.

No, because there are a lot of suckers who "want the results now" and can't wait for an election to be counted.

I'm not someone who pays attention to polls I can't study the details of.


A fair point. I applaud skepticism in every sphere.

However, if the results are usually about right, is it not something like burying your head in the sand to ignore polls as a matter of course?


I am not saying that I have a blanket refusal to accept exit polling, or to accept that it's not the best form of sampling.

I AM SAYING THAT UNLESS I CAN SEE ALL OF THE STATISTICAL METHODS AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES USED I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY STATISTICAL POLL OF ANY KIND. PERIOD.


Fortunately, the fact that statistics applies fairly closely to reality, doesn't rely on your acceptance.


No, because there are a lot of suckers who "want the results now" and can't wait for an election to be counted.

Which is irrelevent. No one would pay exit polls, or any other statistical analysis any heed, if they weren't usually reasonably accurate.

A fair point. I applaud skepticism in every sphere.

However, if the results are usually about right, is it not something like burying your head in the sand to ignore polls as a matter of course?

Fortunately, the fact that statistics applies fairly closely to reality, doesn't rely on your acceptance.

Which is irrelevent. No one would pay exit polls, or any other statistical analysis any heed, if they weren't usually reasonably accurate.

"Usually" is like "almost" as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have the factual outcome of an election than some pollster's prediction.

You keep using "usually" and "fairly closely" or "reasonably". That only applies with horseshoes and hand grenades.

A long article but worth reading as it shows that DK is just talking out of his arse, as usual:

...well, either that was informative or it was bullshit. I can't figure out which right now, mainly because the ramafications of it are rather startling. (I do have a reason for why the Dems would ignore it: they'd do the exact same thing given a chance and wouldn't dare to reveal the methods lest they lose their chance.)

"Usually" is like "almost" as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have the factual outcome of an election than some pollster's prediction.

You keep using "usually" and "fairly closely" or "reasonably". That only applies with horseshoes and hand grenades.

Not at all. If you want to sell a product, you want to have a rough idea if the market will bear it. 'Fairly close' and 'reasonably' are usually enough to base a sound business plan on.

Not at all. If you want to sell a product, you want to have a rough idea if the market will bear it. 'Fairly close' and 'reasonably' are usually enough to base a sound business plan on.

Sure, and if you have access to the methodology, you have an even better idea of the reliability of the poll.

But a poll with no background information, and selected responses held up as pure fact - that's where I draw the line.

Winning a poll is not winning an election.

The Patriot act allows warantless wiretaps, and was allowed and ratified by the legislative body (congress), Military force was allowed by the congress by overwhelming support (Bi partisan), and along with the support of an international coalition. From what i've research, if the president has necessary congressional support, (Wilson, Truman, Lincoln) war is legal. Study up mate.

Actually the problem with what your have just said is that the wiretaps begin and end in different countries. These calls fall under the FISA courts which states the President has three days in order to obtain a warrant after proving that such a warrant was needed. The evidence used to obtain that support is now, and always has been in question. If the President willfully, knowingly, or purposefully obtains that support through dishonest means he is thereby guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and is subject to impeachment. So please follow your own advise and study up mate. Let's see what happens when he's not protected and the Dems have the ability to forcibly bring witnesses in to testify. The days of one party rule and blind loyalty are through, and he's through with them.

Meh. I'm a non-hetero non-male atheist who supports the right to abortion, opposes organized superstition, and believes that consensual adult sex is fine and dandy no matter who is involved. Pretty much every religion includes people who want to kill me.

You can join my religion of militant agnosticism. ;)

Sure, and if you have access to the methodology, you have an even better idea of the reliability of the poll.

But a poll with no background information, and selected responses held up as pure fact - that's where I draw the line.

Winning a poll is not winning an election.

May I ask a question, that I ask you answer honestly and without complaint? It's merely for curiosity's sake:

If the situation were reversed, and Kerry had been said to win when the exit polls were showing voter fraud and Bush was actually the true winner, would you still say what you are saying now about these exit polls? Again, please answer honestly. I would answer this question if your position and mine were reversed, I should say.

Sure, and if you have access to the methodology, you have an even better idea of the reliability of the poll.

But a poll with no background information, and selected responses held up as pure fact - that's where I draw the line.

Winning a poll is not winning an election.

You know, you could look this shit up (http://www.zogby.com/methodology/index.cfm) instead of stomping around with your fingers in your ears...

May I ask a question, that I ask you answer honestly and without complaint? It's merely for curiosity's sake:

If the situation were reversed, and Kerry had been said to win when the exit polls were showing voter fraud and Bush was actually the true winner, would you still say what you are saying now about these exit polls? Again, please answer honestly. I would answer this question if your position and mine were reversed, I should say.

I don't believe an exit poll compared to an actual election result no matter who is running for office, or who wins the election. Period.

I don't find an exit poll to be proof of voter fraud, because an exit poll is not a precise measurement. It is not a direct measurement. It is a sample - and not a very good sample at that.

I don't believe an exit poll compared to an actual election result no matter who is running for office, or who wins the election. Period.

I don't find an exit poll to be proof of voter fraud, because an exit poll is not a precise measurement. It is not a direct measurement. It is a sample - and not a very good sample at that.

So, then, you wouldn't be up in arms if Kerry "stole the election" then? Somehow I doubt that, to be honest, but okay, I'll take your word for it.

I still haven't seen you prove why exit polls aren't reliable. Why would they have been used in the Georgia and Ukraine election scandals a couple years back if they were "just a sample" as you say?

So, then, you wouldn't be up in arms if Kerry "stole the election" then? Somehow I doubt that, to be honest, but okay, I'll take your word for it.

I still haven't seen you prove why exit polls aren't reliable. Why would they have been used in the Georgia and Ukraine election scandals a couple years back if they were "just a sample" as you say?

Zogby himself says they're unreliable. So does Harris.

The sample is NOT random.

Stealing an election requires proof other than "exit polls" IMHO. Find me tampered machines, find me internal memoranda between political operatives, find me a highranking informant who can credibly squeal.

I'm not one who buys political conspiracy in the US without it.

Quite a few reasons to be honest. I'll give you the #1 reason being the fact that only on average between 1 and 3,000 people are polled. NewsFlash: We have more than 300 million people in the United States of America. Look at the numbers. Common Sense tells me in No Way can the polls be accurate with such small numbers and that very minimal amount does NOT in No way speak for the bulk. Any Logical thinker would understand that 3,000 people can't think nor speak for the more than 300,000,000 people.

You've never taken statistics have you? Representative sample much?

Zogby himself says they're unreliable. So does Harris.

The sample is NOT random.

Stealing an election requires proof other than "exit polls" IMHO. Find me tampered machines, find me internal memoranda between political operatives, find me a highranking informant who can credibly squeal.

I'm not one who buys political conspiracy in the US without it.

Neither am I. I too would like to see some more proof before buying anything along those lines.

But I still don't see why exit polls are unreliable if they were used specifically, again, in the cases of Ukraine and Georgia, along with many other mentioned elections. Perhaps the ZOGBY exit poll was not accurate, but that does not render all exit polls taken by all pollers irrelevant.

Fact remains that as long as there is a +/- margin of error of any number other than "0" The poll is NOT accurate. I'm also going to stand by the definition of "accurate" in every English dictionary in this world.

I really don't care how small the percentage of the margin of error is if it's anything greater than 0 the polls are "inaccurate"...

inaccurate

adjective
1. not accurate; "an inaccurate translation"; "the thermometer is inaccurate" [ant: accurate]
2. containing or characterized by error; "erroneous conclusions"; "the answer was inaccurate

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inaccurate

ac·cu·rate
–adjective
1. free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.
2. careful or meticulous: an accurate typist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accurate

Now, I could accept certain reputable polls that describe themselves to be "approximate" In reality, that is exactly what the more reputable pollsters may be but as for accurate, NO, considering facts of the margin of error I will not classify them as being accurate.

ap·prox·i·mate adj. uh-prok-suh-mit; v. uh-prok-suh-meyt] adjective, verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
–adjective 1. near or approaching a certain state, condition, goal, or standard.
2. nearly exact; not perfectly accurate or correct: The approximate time was 10 o'clock.
3. near; close together.
4. very similar; nearly identical.
–verb (used with object) 5. to come near to; approach closely to: to approximate an ideal.
6. to estimate: We approximated the distance at three miles.
7. to simulate; imitate closely: The motions of the stars can be approximated in a planetarium.
8. to bring near.
–verb (used without object) 9. to come near in position, character, amount, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/approximate

No, because they are not accurate. Polls are very controversial. They may be interesting to look at but they can be misleading, misrepresented, and definately not accurate.

Nobody will be able to convince me otherwise that 3,000 people speaks for more than 300,000,000 people.

so by your logic elections are not accurate? After all only about 100 million people voted in 2004 and that is certainly not the entire voting population. Slurp, Bush, Stroke, Bush, (Can't, Will not, face reality) The military says he's wrong with his troop surge. Every expert says he's wrong but after all he talks to God right? Gag me please!

Fact remains that as long as there is a +/- margin of error of any number other than "0" The poll is NOT accurate. I'm also going to stand by the definition of "accurate" in every English dictionary in this world.

I really don't care how small the percentage of the margin of error is if it's anything greater than 0 the polls are "inaccurate"...

inaccurate

adjective
1. not accurate; "an inaccurate translation"; "the thermometer is inaccurate" [ant: accurate]
2. containing or characterized by error; "erroneous conclusions"; "the answer was inaccurate

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inaccurate

ac·cu·rate
–adjective
1. free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.
2. careful or meticulous: an accurate typist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accurate

Now, I could accept certain reputable polls that describe themselves to be "approximate" In reality, that is exactly what the more reputable pollsters may be but as for accurate, NO, considering facts of the margin of error I will not classify them as being accurate.

ap·prox·i·mate adj. uh-prok-suh-mit; v. uh-prok-suh-meyt] adjective, verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
–adjective 1. near or approaching a certain state, condition, goal, or standard.
2. nearly exact; not perfectly accurate or correct: The approximate time was 10 o'clock.
3. near; close together.
4. very similar; nearly identical.
–verb (used with object) 5. to come near to; approach closely to: to approximate an ideal.
6. to estimate: We approximated the distance at three miles.
7. to simulate; imitate closely: The motions of the stars can be approximated in a planetarium.
8. to bring near.
–verb (used without object) 9. to come near in position, character, amount, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/approximate

every single poll has a margin of error, it's called stats 101 flunkie!

Fact remains that as long as there is a +/- margin of error of any number other than "0" The poll is NOT accurate. I'm also going to stand by the definition of "accurate" in every English dictionary in this world.

I really don't care how small the percentage of the margin of error is if it's anything greater than 0 the polls are "inaccurate"...

inaccurate

adjective
1. not accurate; "an inaccurate translation"; "the thermometer is inaccurate" [ant: accurate]
2. containing or characterized by error; "erroneous conclusions"; "the answer was inaccurate

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inaccurate

ac·cu·rate
–adjective
1. free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.
2. careful or meticulous: an accurate typist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accurate

Now, I could accept certain reputable polls that describe themselves to be "approximate" In reality, that is exactly what the more reputable pollsters may be but as for accurate, NO, considering facts of the margin of error I will not classify them as being accurate.

ap·prox·i·mate adj. uh-prok-suh-mit; v. uh-prok-suh-meyt] adjective, verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
–adjective 1. near or approaching a certain state, condition, goal, or standard.
2. nearly exact; not perfectly accurate or correct: The approximate time was 10 o'clock.
3. near; close together.
4. very similar; nearly identical.
–verb (used with object) 5. to come near to; approach closely to: to approximate an ideal.
6. to estimate: We approximated the distance at three miles.
7. to simulate; imitate closely: The motions of the stars can be approximated in a planetarium.
8. to bring near.
–verb (used without object) 9. to come near in position, character, amount, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/approximate

Okay, but Bush is not a popular president. Most of the country is unhappy with him. He also did not get a popularity bump from his latest TV appearences.

Okay, some of you have convinced me that you strongly believe that Polls are accurate, exact, perfect, error free, and whatnot...Okay, if you say so...

Okay, I'm going to disect this USA Today's Poll to make it more understanding and to allow the facts of the number crunching to attempt to prove my point on the inaccuracy: (I copied from the USA Today Poll, the Bold print will be my factual figures)

Some details from the poll of 1,003 adults (margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points): hmmm...1,003 adults of more than 217.8 million adults (according to 2003 US Census Bureau Estimates) Nationwide...what a tremendous difference. :rolleyes: Note: I'm including the +/- 3% in the numbers below in bold. :)

• 47% said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq, vs. 50% who said that before Bush's speech. 441.32-501.5 adults said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq (so 441.32-501.5 adults speaks for the 102.366 million people, very interesting.) vs. 471.41-531.59 adults speak for the more than 102.366 million adults...okay, if you say so. :rolleyes:

• 49% said it is "unlikely" the U.S. will win or "certain" it will not, vs. 46% who said that before Bush's speech. 461.38-521.56 adults speaks for more than 100.188 adults...since when? :confused: vs. 431.29-491.47 adults who said the above before the speech, Interesting Indeed... :rolleyes:

• 29% said the president does have a "clear plan" for handling the situation in Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech. 206.78-320.96 adults voices equal that of more than 56.628 million adults vs the 220.66-280.84 adults speaks for more than 47.916 million adults. Likely? :rolleyes:

• 69% said the president does not have a "clear plan," vs. 72% who said that before the speech. So, 661.98-722.16 adults of more than 143.748 million said the president doesn't have a "clear plan" blah blah blah...vs 692.07-752.25 of more than 150.282 million adults in the Nation before the speech, this really is accurate info... :rolleyes:

• 21% said Democrats in Congress have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech. 180.54-240.72 adults speak for more than 39.204 million adults vs 220.66-280.84 of more than 47.916 million adults before before the speech.

• 75% said Democrats in Congress do not have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 66% who said that before the speech. 722.16-782.34 of more than 156.816 million vs the 631.89-692.07 adults polled of more than 137.214 million adults nation

• Bush's overall "approval rating" stood at 34%, vs. 37% before the speech. 310.93-371.11 adults of more than 67.518 million adults vs 341.02-401.2 adults of more than 74.052 million adults...Now this is truly accurate info and represents the voice of the Nation's adult population, wow some more than 310 strong individual voices... :p okay, if you say so... :rolleyes:

• The percentage who said they disapprove of Bush's performance as president was 63%, vs. 59% before the speech. Finally, 601.8-661.98 individual adults of more than 130.68 million adults in the nation disapprove vs 561.68-621.86 individual adults polled of more than 121.968 million adults nationwide...give me a break...

Anybody that has a half a brain can Logically and Factually say that 1003 Individual Adults canNOT fairly and truly represent the more than 217.8 million adults nationwide. I really don't understand how some here can defend that a poll like this can be "accurate" what ever happened to Common Sense.

You're right, math and statistics are only taught as liberal colleges and Universities. They aren't entire based on logic or anything right? :headbang:

Okay, some of you have convinced me that you strongly believe that Polls are accurate, exact, perfect, error free, and whatnot...Okay, if you say so...

The only person who said they are perfect is you. We said they are certain withing a certain margin of error. Damn you math, damn you!!!!!!!!!!!

*snip*

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant

ig-no-rant

–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

I can quote a dictionary too. If you'd like we can throw definitions at each other all day.

Okay, some of you have convinced me that you strongly believe that Polls are accurate, exact, perfect, error free, and whatnot...Okay, if you say so...

show me one person who has said this please.

Okay, some of you have convinced me that you strongly believe that Polls are accurate, exact, perfect, error free, and whatnot...Okay, if you say so...

Okay, but that's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is that Bush isn't a popular president and that most people in the US do not approve of his handling of his job. It's also that a president usually receives a bump in popularity after a television speech but that that doesn't appear to be the case with Bush.

King Bodacious, you're arguing that polls are inaccurate because they have some inherent limitations--are you also arguing that elections are error free? I'm not talking about fraud here--I'm talking about error, broken machines, faulty vote counts. The way you're ranting about demanding perfection makes me wonder if you have a clue at all.

Fact remains that as long as there is a +/- margin of error of any number other than "0" The poll is NOT accurate. I'm also going to stand by the definition of "accurate" in every English dictionary in this world.

I really don't care how small the percentage of the margin of error is if it's anything greater than 0 the polls are "inaccurate"...

inaccurate

adjective
1. not accurate; "an inaccurate translation"; "the thermometer is inaccurate" [ant: accurate]
2. containing or characterized by error; "erroneous conclusions"; "the answer was inaccurate

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inaccurate

ac·cu·rate
–adjective
1. free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.
2. careful or meticulous: an accurate typist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accurate

Now, I could accept certain reputable polls that describe themselves to be "approximate" In reality, that is exactly what the more reputable pollsters may be but as for accurate, NO, considering facts of the margin of error I will not classify them as being accurate.

ap·prox·i·mate adj. uh-prok-suh-mit; v. uh-prok-suh-meyt] adjective, verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
–adjective 1. near or approaching a certain state, condition, goal, or standard.
2. nearly exact; not perfectly accurate or correct: The approximate time was 10 o'clock.
3. near; close together.
4. very similar; nearly identical.
–verb (used with object) 5. to come near to; approach closely to: to approximate an ideal.
6. to estimate: We approximated the distance at three miles.
7. to simulate; imitate closely: The motions of the stars can be approximated in a planetarium.
8. to bring near.
–verb (used without object) 9. to come near in position, character, amount, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/approximate

Good thing then that dictionnary definitions are descriptive, eh?
Or that more than one dictionary exist with different definitions in each of them.
Or that a scientific definition can be different than a layman's (read theory).

Your dictionary is inacurate, as per your narrow view of the definition and cannot, therefore, be trusted to give us an accurate definition of those terms. :D

Nobody has said that all polls are 100% accurate 100% of the time. All anyone who actually has a clue will say is that non biased polls with a satisfactorily representative sample will be accurate within their margin of error 99% of the time.

Nobody has said that all polls are 100% accurate 100% of the time. All anyone who actually has a clue will say is that non biased polls with a satisfactorily representative sample will be accurate within their margin of error 99% of the time.

It wasn't meant for me to rant, however, many posters are using the word accurate with margin of error which cannot be defined with the word "accurate". The word "accurate" used with "margin of error" is like the President of Iran saying Iran's nuclear ambitions are strictly for peaceful energy purposes and the very next sentence states how he wants Israel wiped off of the map. They just don't go together and all I was saying was that the polls are not accurate. Accurate is not the correct word to use and makes no sense when beside the phrase margin of error considering that is the opposite of what the word accurate means, accurate is error free so why is it Logical to use accurate next to margin of error in reality polls are approximate since they do admittingly use the margin of error.

NOTE: To those claiming nobody claimed that the polls are accurate go back to posts #46, 55, 56, 61, 88, and lots more but I'm too tired to go back through every single post but their were many stating how the polls are accurate. Oh well, I'm done, finished. whatever... :rolleyes:

To Bash Bush which obviously is the New Age Fad is fine. Freedom of Speech. Fact is he is the Commander-in-Cheif and the most powerful man in the world and nothing nobody says can or will change that. I look forward to everybodies whining and bickering over the next 2 yrs. In fact, I expect it to happen even IF a Democrat is elected. It doesn't matter if an Independent or Green Party get elected the bickering shall continue.

every single poll has a margin of error, it's called stats 101 flunkie!

every statistical analysis has a margin of error

actually EVERYTHING has a margin of error. if something has to be 100% accurate then nothing is accurate.

step on your bathroom scale 100 times. you will not get the same exact reading every time. you just round it off in your head to the nearest pound or half pound.

if you had a hand count of 100 million ballots IT WOULD NOT BE ACCURATE. that's why we have recounts.

accuracy is an illusion in a complicated world.

To Bash Bush which obviously is the New Age Fad is fine. Freedom of Speech. Fact is he is the Commander-in-Cheif and the most powerful man in the world and nothing nobody says can or will change that. I look forward to everybodies whining and bickering over the next 2 yrs. In fact, I expect it to happen even IF a Democrat is elected. It doesn't matter if an Independent or Green Party get elected the bickering shall continue.

He's also still a moron and the worst president this country has ever had. ;)

It wasn't meant for me to rant, however, many posters are using the word accurate with margin of error which cannot be defined with the word "accurate". The word "accurate" used with "margin of error" is like the President of Iran saying Iran's nuclear ambitions are strictly for peaceful energy purposes and the very next sentence states how he wants Israel wiped off of the map. They just don't go together and all I was saying was that the polls are not accurate. Accurate is not the correct word to use and makes no sense when beside the phrase margin of error considering that is the opposite of what the word accurate means, accurate is error free so why is it Logical to use accurate next to margin of error in reality polls are approximate since they do admittingly use the margin of error.

NOTE: To those claiming nobody claimed that the polls are accurate go back to posts #46, 55, 56, 61, 88, and lots more but I'm too tired to go back through every single post but their were many stating how the polls are accurate. Oh well, I'm done, finished. whatever... :rolleyes:


"accurate within the margin of error" is a perfectly acceptable mathematical term. Just because you don't want it to be doesn't make that any less true.

While that may be true, it also doesn't change the fact that there are millions of militant Islamic types (NOT ALL MUSLIMS MIND YOU) who want to kill us all.

This coming from Mr. Sterilize All The Muslims? HA!

It wasn't meant for me to rant, however, many posters are using the word accurate with margin of error which cannot be defined with the word "accurate". The word "accurate" used with "margin of error" is like the President of Iran saying Iran's nuclear ambitions are strictly for peaceful energy purposes and the very next sentence states how he wants Israel wiped off of the map. They just don't go together and all I was saying was that the polls are not accurate. Accurate is not the correct word to use and makes no sense when beside the phrase margin of error considering that is the opposite of what the word accurate means, accurate is error free so why is it Logical to use accurate next to margin of error in reality polls are approximate since they do admittingly use the margin of error.

NOTE: To those claiming nobody claimed that the polls are accurate go back to posts #46, 55, 56, 61, 88, and lots more but I'm too tired to go back through every single post but their were many stating how the polls are accurate. Oh well, I'm done, finished. whatever... :rolleyes:

To Bash Bush which obviously is the New Age Fad is fine. Freedom of Speech. Fact is he is the Commander-in-Cheif and the most powerful man in the world and nothing nobody says can or will change that. I look forward to everybodies whining and bickering over the next 2 yrs. In fact, I expect it to happen even IF a Democrat is elected. It doesn't matter if an Independent or Green Party get elected the bickering shall continue.

:rolleyes:

You're just unhappy that a great many people seem to feel that the "Commander-in-Cheif [sic] and the most powerful man in the world" is doing a less than stellar job. I guarantee that if Bush's polling numbers were the reverse of what they are, you wouldn't say anything about the insidious "margin of error."

And by the way, the Commander-in Chief can be removed from office. While not likely to happen, it's completely possible. In fact, it was tried on the previous Commander-in-Chief on much lesser charges than might be pending on

Sure, and if you have access to the methodology, you have an even better idea of the reliability of the poll.

But a poll with no background information, and selected responses held up as pure fact - that's where I draw the line.

Winning a poll is not winning an election.

whats your real point?

an exit poll is an election night tool that allows the big news outlets to predict or anticipate a winner.

thats all

its not official, it just a tool. it makes election night tv more fun.

IF a properly done exit poll is far off the mark it does mean something. it may mean that the poll wasnt done as well as they thought it was, it may mean that something fishy happened. personally, if i were satisfied with the methodology, i would want an investigation of election practices.

i would expect you to feel the same way. no one wants fraudulent elections.

:rolleyes:

You're just unhappy that a great many people seem to feel that the "Commander-in-Cheif [sic] and the most powerful man in the world" is doing a less than stellar job. I guarantee that if Bush's polling numbers were the reverse of what they are, you wouldn't say anything about the insidious "margin of error."

And by the way, the Commander-in Chief can be removed from office. While not likely to happen, it's completely possible. In fact, it was tried on the previous Commander-in-Chief on much lesser charges than might be pending on

King Bodacious is just an example of how Busheviks make Stewart and Colbert very wealthy and popular men. And prove them right.

whats your real point?

an exit poll is an election night tool that allows the big news outlets to predict or anticipate a winner.

thats all

its not official, it just a tool. it makes election night tv more fun.

IF a properly done exit poll is far off the mark it does mean something. it may mean that the poll wasnt done as well as they thought it was, it may mean that something fishy happened. personally, if i were satisfied with the methodology, i would want an investigation of election practices.

i would expect you to feel the same way. no one wants fraudulent elections.

It was exit polls in the Ukraine that provided the initial impetus for the Orange Revolution a few years ago. They were what got the initial investigation into voter fraud started--fraud that became apparent pretty early on. So why aren't they good enough for us?

It was exit polls in the Ukraine that provided the initial impetus for the Orange Revolution a few years ago. They were what got the initial investigation into voter fraud started--fraud that became apparent pretty early on. So why aren't they good enough for us?

because we dont have the balls to face the truth? that diebold did exactly what he said he was going to do and so delivered ohio to bush no matter the actual vote.

because we dont have the balls to face the truth? that diebold did exactly what he said he was going to do and so delivered ohio to bush no matter the actual vote.

And you have proof of this?

The main reason I don't believe this sort of tinfoil hat shit is because no one could keep their mouth shut if they were doing this sort of thing. Everyone and their brother would be on the air, right now, "telling their story".

Maybe you don't have the balls to face the fact that a lot of people are too stupid to breathe air, let alone vote.

And you have proof of this?

The main reason I don't believe this sort of tinfoil hat shit is because no one could keep their mouth shut if they were doing this sort of thing. Everyone and their brother would be on the air, right now, "telling their story".

Maybe you don't have the balls to face the fact that a lot of people are too stupid to breathe air, let alone vote.

the lack of investigation shows that we dont have the balls to face it.

without an investigation there can be no proof of the allegation now can there?

And you have proof of this?

The main reason I don't believe this sort of tinfoil hat shit is because no one could keep their mouth shut if they were doing this sort of thing. Everyone and their brother would be on the air, right now, "telling their story".

Maybe you don't have the balls to face the fact that a lot of people are too stupid to breathe air, let alone vote.

There's loads of proof of voting irregularities in Ohio 2004--not that you'd know it from the lack of media coverage. The machines themselves haven't been investigated in part because Diebold is allowed to claim "trade secret" and not turn over the code to investigators, so there's no proof one way or the other about their part in the election.

But if you want to talk about voting machine irregularity that's being investigated, complete with lawsuits and everything, I turn your attention to the 2006 election of FL-13, Jennings v. Buchanan. 18,000 undervotes on those machines.

Sure, and if you have access to the methodology, you have an even better idea of the reliability of the poll.

But a poll with no background information, and selected responses held up as pure fact - that's where I draw the line.

Winning a poll is not winning an election.

You create a strawman argument. The responses are not 'held up as pure fact' - they are held up as poll results. If you wish to treat them as 'pure fact', that is your option.

If we were going to 'treat them as pure fact', we wouldn't bother counting ballots.

As for the 'background information' thing... that is, again, your lookout. If you trust the people you hire to do the research, then you don't need to see the methodology, or even the raw data - indeed, since most people have such a shaky understanding of statistics, the raw data is probably harmful to most situations.

I wonder - have you tried asking to see the raw data? Or, are you complaining because you don't see the raw data in the finished product?

There's loads of proof of voting irregularities in Ohio 2004--not that you'd know it from the lack of media coverage. The machines themselves haven't been investigated in part because Diebold is allowed to claim "trade secret" and not turn over the code to investigators, so there's no proof one way or the other about their part in the election.

But if you want to talk about voting machine irregularity that's being investigated, complete with lawsuits and everything, I turn your attention to the 2006 election of FL-13, Jennings v. Buchanan. 18,000 undervotes on those machines.

"being investigated" is not "proven".

And I haven't seen any "proof".

And I still believe that if there were such a conspiracy, there would be people coming out of the woodwork to "tell their story" and sell books and be on Oprah.

Here - I'll quote you: "there's no proof one way or the other about their part in the election".

I don't believe an exit poll compared to an actual election result no matter who is running for office, or who wins the election. Period.

I don't find an exit poll to be proof of voter fraud, because an exit poll is not a precise measurement. It is not a direct measurement. It is a sample - and not a very good sample at that.

It doesn't pretend to be a direct measurement, or an incredibly accurate sample. But, if you end up with mor than the 3 or 4 percentage points you expect with a reasonable sample size, you have to start looking at the reasons why.

If - for example - you were getting a 10% error rating, and you examine the raw data and find only 100 people were polled - you probably suspect that the methodology wasn't sufficiently selective.

On the other hand, if you were getting a 10% error ratio on 10,000 polls, you might start to suspect the discrepency lays elsewhere... maybe even in electoral fraud.

Exit Polls are 'circumstantial evidence'. They can be used as a diagnostic tool. One shouldn't use them on their own, of course, but they can highlight possible problems in the process they are mirroring.

It doesn't pretend to be a direct measurement, or an incredibly accurate sample. But, if you end up with mor than the 3 or 4 percentage points you expect with a reasonable sample size, you have to start looking at the reasons why.

If - for example - you were getting a 10% error rating, and you examine the raw data and find only 100 people were polled - you probably suspect that the methodology wasn't sufficiently selective.

On the other hand, if you were getting a 10% error ratio on 10,000 polls, you might start to suspect the discrepency lays elsewhere... maybe even in electoral fraud.

Exit Polls are 'circumstantial evidence'. They can be used as a diagnostic tool. One shouldn't use them on their own, of course, but they can highlight possible problems in the process they are mirroring.


Well, if it were vote fraud, I'm sure Zogby would have piped up, eh?

It sounds like he thinks the exit polls were poorly done.

Here - I'll quote you: "there's no proof one way or the other about their part in the election".That only applies to the Diebold election machines. There's tons of proof--though you probably won't accept it because John Conyers chaired the panel that investigated it--that Ohio Democrats were systematically hampered and in some cases denied their right to vote. Hell, you want proof of voter fraud? Florida 2000--the voter purge list put together by Jeb! and Katherine Harris (may she rot in electoral hell forever).
Prediction: Kennedy in Chicago 1960 will come up at some point

Zogby himself says they're unreliable. So does Harris.


Zogby has highlighted some problems... he has said that certain iterations of the principle might be misleading. Overall, however, the principle is sound.


The sample is NOT random.


No, this is true... and something which is not concealed, so it isn't like you just found a smoking gun. WHen the sample is less random, the results are less reliable... but they are still illustrative - and they become more useful as the sample size increases.


Stealing an election requires proof other than "exit polls" IMHO. Find me tampered machines, find me internal memoranda between political operatives, find me a highranking informant who can credibly squeal.


You demand more proof. I would demand more proof. However, a big discrepency between what those canvassed said, and what the machines recorded, should at least cast some doubt on the matter.


I'm not one who buys political conspiracy in the US without it.

Because the American governmnt has never seen political conspiracy? Personally, I find the idea that the American government is beyond reproach far harder to believe than the suspicion that there is always someone in high office up to no good.

I wonder - have you tried asking to see the raw data? Or, are you complaining because you don't see the raw data in the finished product?

I linked to the Zogby page that explains methodology (actually, I picked a poll at random simply to demonstrate that the information was available) pages ago and it has gone strangely ignored...

...well, not strangely...predictably?

consistent with a standard, rule, or model;

Part of your highlighted definition.

By the definitions you chose, the process was 'accurate'.

That only applies to the Diebold election machines. There's tons of proof--though you probably won't accept it because John Conyers chaired the panel that investigated it--that Ohio Democrats were systematically hampered and in some cases denied their right to vote. Hell, you want proof of voter fraud? Florida 2000--the voter purge list put together by Jeb! and Katherine Harris (may she rot in electoral hell forever).
Prediction: Kennedy in Chicago 1960 will come up at some point

Show me the proof.

In particular, show me how the GOP coordinated and conducted this.

Yes, America has had political conspiracies. And in most cases, no one can keep their mouths shut.

Just look at Watergate.

And you have proof of this?

The main reason I don't believe this sort of tinfoil hat shit is because no one could keep their mouth shut if they were doing this sort of thing. Everyone and their brother would be on the air, right now, "telling their story".

Maybe you don't have the balls to face the fact that a lot of people are too stupid to breathe air, let alone vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-11-afghan-gold_x.htm?csp=34

"The mystery baffled archaeologists for more than two decades. What happened to 22,000 pieces of gold — jewel-encrusted crowns, daggers and baubles from an ancient burial mound — that had apparently vanished from Afghanistan in the 1980s?

The treasure, and a host of other masterpieces, had been saved by a mysterious group of Afghans who patiently kept them hidden away underground, at great personal risk.

The group was known as the "key holders," because they held the keys to the basement vault on the grounds of the presidential palace where the gold and other museum treasures were hidden during troubled times, archaeologists and curators said.

"Over the last 20 to 25 years, during food shortages and money crises, this handful of people ... could have sold these collections instead of going hungry, but they never once sacrificed their own cultural heritage," said Fredrik Hiebert, an archaeologist with the National Geographic Society.
"

An unknown group of historical advocates managed to conceal 22,000 items of gold from the soviet occupiers, and then from the Taliban - concealing an enormous horder of golden 'treasures' for more than two decades. They didn't spend the gold, they didn't cash the story in.

This should be an object lesson to those who immediately dismiss any possibility of conspiracy or the keeping of secrets.

Well, if it were vote fraud, I'm sure Zogby would have piped up, eh?

It sounds like he thinks the exit polls were poorly done.

He did say that the results of the poll didn't match the results of the election.

I'm beginning to think you are selective about which information you choose to acknowledge.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-11-afghan-gold_x.htm?csp=34

An unknown group of historical advocates managed to conceal 22,000 items of gold from the soviet occupiers, and then from the Taliban - concealing an enormous horder of golden 'treasures' for more than two decades. They didn't spend the gold, they didn't cash the story in.

This should be an object lesson to those who immediately dismiss any possibility of conspiracy or the keeping of secrets.

They're not Americans. Look who talked during Watergate.

Show me the proof.

In particular, show me how the GOP coordinated and conducted this.

Yes, America has had political conspiracies. And in most cases, no one can keep their mouths shut.

Just look at Watergate.

You haven't been paying attention. In the case of Nixon's bizarre machinations, everyone was keeping their mouths shut, until the 'smoking gun' of the break-in was discovered (apparently, by accident).

Once the shit hit the fan, people started talking.

They're not Americans. Look who talked during Watergate.

A security guard who found duct tape on a lock he'd already checked.

I assume you are actually talking about the information that came out after the trouble started...?

You haven't been paying attention. In the case of Nixon's bizarre machinations, everyone was keeping their mouths shut, until the 'smoking gun' of the break-in was discovered (apparently, by accident).

Once the shit hit the fan, people started talking.

They had major trouble keeping their mouth shut over time.

Americans have the terrible habit of talking and squealing, and selling their end of the story for money or for immunity from prosecution.

Something like the Diebold conspiracy could not be kept secret - it would involve far too many people. It would also involve writing - and testing - bulletproof software with bulletproof backdoor stuff in it.

As someone who writes software for a living, I don't buy that at all - someone would see it - and someone would talk.

They had major trouble keeping their mouth shut over time.

Americans have the terrible habit of talking and squealing, and selling their end of the story for money or for immunity from prosecution.

Something like the Diebold conspiracy could not be kept secret - it would involve far too many people. It would also involve writing - and testing - bulletproof software with bulletproof backdoor stuff in it.

As someone who writes software for a living, I don't buy that at all - someone would see it - and someone would talk.

Why would it involve bulletproof software, when the software (and indeed, the active hardware) is being held removed from investigation?

You don't think much of the average American, do you...

Why would it involve bulletproof software, when the software (and indeed, the active hardware) is being held removed from investigation?

You don't think much of the average American, do you...

There have to be many software developers in that shop.

Do you actually believe that each and every one of them, including the designers and testers and tech writers and the ones who write requirements are ALL die-hard neocon fanatics who will all keep their mouths shut?

Don't make me laugh...

There have to be many software developers in that shop.

Do you actually believe that each and every one of them, including the designers and testers and tech writers and the ones who write requirements are ALL die-hard neocon fanatics who will all keep their mouths shut?

Don't make me laugh...

You create a false representation of how the situation 'must' be. I assume you have never actually worked on a project that had any kind of security clearance.

...
Stealing an election requires proof other than "exit polls" IMHO. Find me tampered machines, find me internal memoranda between political operatives, find me a highranking informant who can credibly squeal.
...

The tampered machines have been cleared of their data, but the other two things could very well happen.
Not to hard to imagine really -- election officials with some evidence of tampering, journalists with unverifiable (anonymously supplied) documents, would be staking their careers and their reputations on being believed. The obfuscation and mud-slinging would be far worse while the elected (or mis-elected) President is still incumbent, since if proven it would likely mean impeachment.
Election tampering would be hard to prove, and failing to prove it makes anyone who tries look like a sore loser who can't live with the result for partisan reasons. But with the Bush jr Presidency mercifully over, there'll be people from both sides with an incentive to show how he wasn't really elected, and a lot of sore consciences about how that Presidency turned out. What could be dubbed a "credible mass" of whistleblowers.
Consider also that Kerry chose to honour the official count. As an 'Alpha partisan' with a clear interest in exposing fraud, his action (eventually, but before exhausting all appeals) greatly weakened the credibility of any whistleblowers.

The last few weeks of campaigning, or immediately after the next result, a whole pile of stuff could come out. Or it might not. I'm just speculating :)

Those Diebold machines are a disgrace. Whether or not their results were fudged, it is simply unacceptable to use machines which can be so easily tampered with. When public polsters are more open and rigorous in their methods than Diebold are with their supposed vote recorders, the US ought to seriously consider paper ballots and pencils instead, despite all the trees it would cost and the days it would take to count the vote. It's not a bloody game-show, it's democracy, and it's got to be done right.

just do the world a favor and drop dead bush, nevermind just staying off the tv.