I guess Romney is really surging in Ohio.

[Pens1566]

Charles is right.

 

[hal2kilo]

Charles is right.

Desperation says he's wrong!

 

[zinfamous]

I don't understand why there needs to be all this gnashing of teeth and arguing about polls or poll methodology. As long as dems realize that it's in the bag and there's no need for them to vote everything is fine

significant portion of Ohio has already voted, so....

 

[emperus]

People looking at someone listing credentials as the end all be all of the purveyor of truth are mindless sheep. Just because he has them doesn't mean squat in and of itself. One person listing their idea of a way to perform a calculation while simply listing credentials as a source doesn't make for anything more than and educated opinion.

Once you figure out that letters after someone's name tells you only so much you will get burned a lot less in this world.

xBiff, it is said it is better to keep your moth shut and be thought stupid then open your mouth and remove all doubt. I think reading your posts all doubt is gone.

Here is a Nobel Peace Prize winner (Krugman) on this topic.

Margin of Error Error

OK, not actually an error, but maybe a failure to take the context into account.
This Times report on the Romney campaign’s “pay no attention to the polls” memo cites the CNN poll, but seems to minimize its (literal) significance:

Even as one of the first post-convention polls by a major news organization, from CNN and ORC International, showed Mr. Obama with a slight gain, 52 to 46, over Mr. Romney, within the poll’s margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, the two campaigns agreed that readings right after the conventions can be ephemeral and that the race was likely to remain competitive until the end.
​

One point is that the margin of error is a 95 percent confidence interval, which is a pretty strict test. But anyway, the key point missing here is that there have been multiple polls showing an Obama bounce; six if I have it right, the four trackers plus CNN and now ABC. This means that in effect we have a much larger sample than in any one poll, and hence a much smaller margin of error.
Of course the Obama bounce might prove ephemeral. But it’s real, and that reality is why Nate Silver’s model has moved substantially toward Obama.

 

[Moonbeam]

The neuroscience says that conservatives aren't stupid but rather have an emotional stake in what they believe introducing bias into their thinking such that their intelligence is used to defend their biased position rather than analyze it for accuracy.

If you were to argue as such with them they would see it right away, but when they do it, it remains totally invisible to them. In fact, when argued with, not only do they defend, they become more convinced with their defense. In short, the smarter a conservative is, the more deeply committed he can become to being wrong.

The conundrum this introduces to the discussion here is that xBiffx has a point when he argues against expert opinion. The so called wise men can in fact be the greatest fools, but those letters behind somebody's name don't say the person must be a fool, only that if he is he will be good at it. On the other hand, when one of these fools meets the truth from some honest expert, he won't be persuaded by that expertise.

Real wisdom, I think, can only be had by the mind that has delved into that mind's unconscious. We are motivated by factors we do not want to see. Only a mind with a compulsion to know the self will have any real objectivity. So wisdom is not so much a matter of what you know about the world, but about what you have felt about what you didn't know you feel.

 

[umbrella39]

Charles is right.

Charles in charge...

 

[Phokus]

xBiff, it is said it is better to keep your moth shut and be thought stupid then open your mouth and remove all doubt. I think reading your posts all doubt is gone.

Here is a Nobel Peace Prize winner (Krugman) on this topic.

The biggest point in your link is that we should all pay attention to nate silver's models given that he's earned his reputation as the best statistician in predicting elections and biff should shut the fuck up.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well, if you are Fox News only looking at Rasmussen.

Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf

 

[Todd33]

Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf

What does the 2008 national polls have to do with 2012 Ohio ones? Are you saying Rasmussen is the most accurate in all polls no matter when and where?

 

[Farang]

Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf

Rasmussen is not necessarily wrong, but the aggregate of polls would suggest that he is sitting the Romney end of his MoE in one particular poll.

 

[woolfe9999]

Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf

I'm pretty sure that this has been covered. Rasmussen showed a large systemic R leaning bias in 2010. Also, pay attention to your link. Rasmussen gets the highest grade because its final PV poll was only off by .5. Yet all but one pollster was off within the margin of sampling error. That means those rankings may well be a matter of luck. The best that can be said is that Rasmussen didn't show an R lean on the PV in that particular year.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I like xBiffx's methodology.

Now, I've always found my age to be in a rather banal range. So please excuse me while I date myself with uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating until I add enough uncertainty to support that I am billions of years old.

 

[Nemesis 1]

The Biggest thing that will come out from this election If romney wins. Is the fact that the Media no longer controls we the people . This is a big event and a step in the right direction for those who take that step .,

 

[xBiffx]

I like xBiffx's methodology.

Now, I've always found my age to be in a rather banal range. So please excuse me while I date myself with uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating until I add enough uncertainty to support that I am billions of years old.

You, are a complete moron. Never said the average changed. Never said the error adds to the average thereby giving you a different averaged result. Fucking complete moron.

Cute story though.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You, are a complete moron. Never said the average changed. Never said the error adds to the average thereby giving you a different averaged result.

See:

The error is cumulative if you are going to try and lump them all together.

Not equivalent, you are using the same technique everytime to take that measurement. First time, measure with a yardstick, then with a laser, next with sonar. Each has a different error so the final answer isn't the average. You have increased the uncertainty of your number because of the different testing events and the error associated with them.

So I am increasing the uncertainty of my age by adding in more dating methods.

 

[Farang]

The Biggest thing that will come out from this election If romney wins. Is the fact that the Media no longer controls we the people . This is a big event and a step in the right direction for those who take that step .,

Irrespective of the candidates and their positions, it would be a horrible step. It would validate a strategy that has one party torpedo the country and its economy for the sake of creating a narrative to regain the White House.

This isn't some conspiracy, Republicans were very open about it. Do not cooperate, do nothing to help the recovery, constantly say 'if you'd do what we tell you to things would get better,' and so when '12 comes around the country will still be a mess and we'll be able to blame the incumbent. They even went so far as to purposefully manufacture a 'debt crisis' by holding the country hostage for what is typically a procedural vote to increase the debt ceiling, which damaged the economy and cut our credit rating, and now leaves us with a 'fiscal cliff' that is practically impossible to be dealt with in a lame duck session.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You, are a complete moron. Never said the average changed. Never said the error adds to the average thereby giving you a different averaged result. Fucking complete moron.

Cute story though.

Why are you being so gratuitously insulting and profane? Your posts would be clearer and more compelling if you weren't constantly going out of your way to be abrasive.

 

[xBiffx]

See:

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Thanks for quoting me to make my point. I said error increases, not the average increases. The average stays the same but the uncertainty goes up.

So I am increasing the uncertainty of my age by adding in more dating methods.

No you didn't. You increased your age to billions of years.

Like I said. Complete fucking moron.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008.

He did fine on the overall number. His state polling was abysmal.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I said error increases, not the average increases. The average stays the same but the uncertainty goes up.

You think uranium-lead or potassium-argon would come up with dates in the 0-120 year range?
The average would increase because their outputs would be high.

And, as you just said, according to your methodology, adding these methods increases the uncertainty as to my real age. So the more I add the less you know!

I'll just keep adding dating methods that can't say crap until you can't disprove that I am not billions of years old.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Irrespective of the candidates and their positions, it would be a horrible step. It would validate a strategy that has one party torpedo the country and its economy for the sake of creating a narrative to regain the White House.

This isn't some conspiracy, Republicans were very open about it. Do not cooperate, do nothing to help the recovery, constantly say 'if you'd do what we tell you to things would get better,' and so when '12 comes around the country will still be a mess and we'll be able to blame the incumbent. They even went so far as to purposefully manufacture a 'debt crisis' by holding the country hostage for what is typically a procedural vote to increase the debt ceiling, which damaged the economy and cut our credit rating, and now leaves us with a 'fiscal cliff' that is practically impossible to be dealt with in a lame duck session.

Thats your story and only weak minded people would come to those conclusions. Would you like to interview the demons I know . Put them all together and ya end with an IQ of -160

 

[Numeros]

Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf

Rasmussen was not the most accurate in 2008. Both of those sources you cite are outdated and invalid. They were compiled in early November, before all ballots had been tallied.

The "Report Card" was based on a 6.5 Obama margin. Obama, in fact, won by 7.2 percent. Notice that it shows Rasmussen being off by 0.5 percent. Rasmussen was, in fact, off by 1.2 percent. The Report Card is fatally flawed.

The Fordham "Initial Report" was based on a 6.15 margin. Again, Obama won by 7.2 percent. Fordham later released a complete analysis based on the final official popular vote outcome. Eight pollsters were found to be more accurate than Rasmussen.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...campaign_/2008 poll accuracy panagopoulos.pdf

 

[Blackjack200]

Rasmussen was not the most accurate in 2008. Both of those sources you cite are outdated and invalid. They were compiled in early November, before all ballots had been tallied.

The "Report Card" was based on a 6.5 Obama margin. Obama, in fact, won by 7.2 percent. Notice that it shows Rasmussen being off by 0.5 percent. Rasmussen was, in fact, off by 1.2 percent. The Report Card is fatally flawed.

The Fordham "Initial Report" was based on a 6.15 margin. Again, Obama won by 7.2 percent. Fordham later released a complete analysis based on the final official popular vote outcome. Eight pollsters were found to be more accurate than Rasmussen.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...campaign_/2008 poll accuracy panagopoulos.pdf

Holy crap, hell of a first post! :thumbsup:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This was posted in another thread by someone.

For the sake of argument, I'd like to bring up how Rasmussen polled Ohio in 2008 (most recent poll first, oldest poll last):

McCain-Obama:
49-49
45-49
49-47
49-49
47-49
48-47
48-47
47-46
50-46
48-45
51-44
45-41
46-40
44-43
45-44
47-40
46-40
42-41

Obama won Ohio by 5% in 2008.

 

[xBiffx]

You thing uranium-lead or potassium-argon would come up with dates in the 0-120 year range?
The average would increase because their outputs would be high.

And, as you just said, according to your methodology, adding these methods increases the uncertainty as to my real age. So the more I add the less you know!

I'll just keep adding dating methods that can't say crap until you can't disprove that I am not billions of years old.

Let me simplify, again.

You have two measurement methods. One give you an answer of 40 with and error of 4%. The other gives you an answer of 60 with an error of 5%. What some are trying to say is that the final results of these two methods is 50 with a 3.6% error. How is this possible?

That result doesn't even fit within the two measurements possibilities. You could still get a result of 59 or 42 or 56 or.......