I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
frist yo
Need to do a study of AP and Reuters lack of consistency. Something stinks.
**** OCTOBER SURPRISE -- 10/23/2004 ****
AP Wire - Crawford, TX
Pres. Bush this morning boarded a Marine helicopter that took him to an awaiting AirforceOne, which then whisked him off to BAGHDAD, IRAQ. The 18 hour flight which began in the cover of darkness, arrived at the GHWBush Intl Airport in Baghdad just as the sun began rising over the desert landscape.
In other news, designers from Paris, London, and New York announced that this fall, tin-foil hats are the appropriate accessory for the discriminating conspiracy theorist.
-UncleBilly
There are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
it's called "media bias," atrios.
only not the kind wingnuts tend to froth over.
Click to sign a petiton against the draft.
The map shows where everyone is from who's signed it.
(to sign, scroll down past the map)
Click to sign a petiton against the draft.
The map shows where everyone is from who's signed it.
(to sign, scroll down past the map)
Click to sign a petiton against the draft.
The map shows where everyone is from who's signed it.
(to sign, scroll down past the map)
More annoying is the failure to report that numbers in the 46 & under range spell almost certain defeat for Bush the incumbent.
WalMart cancels order for Jon Stewart's "America" book.
Tell me this isn't political....
Hey WalMart!... retribution is a bitch, baby.
It's a clear touchstone for media bias:
If a source reports a within MOE Bush lead as a lead, and a within MOE Kerry lead as a tie, it has a Bush bias, and vice versa.
Click to sign a petiton against the draft.
The map shows where everyone is from who's signed it.
(to sign, scroll down past the map)
OMG why is it posting multiple times???
Sorry if i broke it 
OT -
Just got this email from moveon.org. In case you haven't seen it, very powerful ad and I hope it gets on the air...
Dear MoveOn member,
With 12 days to go and a dead-heat race, it's time to pull out all the stops. Luckily, we've got a secret weapon -- a final television spot that tests better and sways more swing voters than almost any advertisement we've seen.
"He Just Doesn't Get It" was created by Win Back Respect and features their Band of Sisters, a courageous group of women whose family members served or died in Iraq and who are speaking out. It seizes on outrageous footage of President Bush joking about not being able to find the WMDs in Iraq, with a slide showing him looking under tables in the Oval Office. "My brother died in Baghdad on April 29th," Brooke Campbell says in the spot. "I watched President Bush make a joke, looking around for weapons of mass destruction. My brother died looking for weapons of mass destruction."
The ad is simple, powerful, and true, and it captures in 30 seconds what's wrong with George Bush's leadership. We need to get it on the air THIS WEEKEND -- we're aiming to air it for $1 million in the swing states where it can make the biggest difference. But we can't do that without your help. Can you help us raise $1 million today to put this ad in front of voters?
*
Psst, Atrios, it's on purpose that polls are so played by ho's...the real #'s are enough to give a Pretzeldent a heart attack!
OMG why is it posting multiple times???
Sorry if i broke it
OMG why is it posting multiple times???
Sorry if i broke it
I've noted the same thing, Atrios. It stinks. And, as we've all noted before, the polls are mostly not that good an indicator anymore. I talk to everyone I can about this election and I can count the people who say they're voting for Bush on my fingers. Overwhelmingly, people say that we need to get rid of him. And then we need to start in on the media.
OMG why is it posting multiple times???
Sorry if i broke it
Please report incidents you have happened at the polling place...202-863-8000
OMG why is it posting multiple times???
Sorry if i broke it
Amen. It is sickening to see this day after day. The best Kerry can achieve in the press is a tie, no matter what the % actually is.
We need to call the media on this crap.
Abby, don't press refresh in your browser after posting a message. That causes repeat posts. Just click on the link from the main page to reload the comments page.
OMG why is it posting multiple times???
Sorry if i broke it
Walmart no doubt is Satan's discount store. But I can certainly see why it would think the book would threaten its image as family-friendly. The book is hilarious, but it's also ribald, raw and potty-mouthed. I can't hold this decision against the company, as much as I'd like to.
Of course, this whole defense goes out the window if the bastards are stocking Ann Coulter's books.
OMG why is it posting multiple times???
Sorry if i broke it
AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Dead Heat
By RON FOURNIER
AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are locked in a tie for the popular vote, according to an Associated Press poll. Voters seem open to change in the White House - most disapprove of the president's performance at home and in Iraq - but still harbor doubts about making the switch.
Bush's strength continues to be in a perception by voters that he is the most qualified to protect the country, though his advantage has dwindled in recent weeks. Some 56 percent say the country is on the wrong track.
In the AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Sen. John Edwards got support from 49 percent of those who said they were likely to vote, and the Republican team of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney got 46 percent, within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Oct. 18-20 survey, released Thursday, included 976 likely voters.
A spate of other polls show the race tied or give Bush a slight lead nationwide. The presidency will go to whoever gets a majority of the 538 Electoral College votes, a state-by-state chase that is just as close as national surveys.
Likely voters are divided on many levels:
- They are just as likely to back Democrats for Congress as Republicans, with a 47-46 split favoring Democrats. That is essentially a tie.
- Twenty-four percent say they have already voted or will cast ballots before Election Day. Those who voted early were just as likely to back Kerry as Bush.
- A third of likely voters have been contacted by a candidate, campaign or outside group seeking support. Twenty-three percent said they were urged to back Kerry and 21 percent said they were asked to support Bush, a sign that two massive get-out-the-vote campaigns have had equal success contacting voters.
LATEST NEWS
AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Dead Heat
Recent Polls on the Presidential Race
Poll: Kerry Improves Image Among Voters
Polls: Coors, Salazar Tied in Colo. Race
Poll: Bush Doubles Support Among Blacks
Interactives
Presidential Campaign
Presidential Debates
A Look Back at the Conventions
Debate Transcripts
Third Presidential Debate
Second Presidential Debate
Vice Presidential Debate
First Presidential Debate
Election News
Political Advertising Grows in Final Weeks
Bush, Kerry War Chests Even in October
Kerry's Hunting Trip Targets Ohio Voters
AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Dead Heat
Ex-Hostage Walks Off-Stage at Ohio Debate
PHOTO GALLERY
Presidential Campaign
Audio
Lester reports that most polling data show terrorism trumps pocketbook issues in this election.
Less than half, 47 percent, approve of Bush's job performance. A rating below 50 percent spells trouble for any incumbent, and Bush falls below that threshold on the economy, domestic affairs and handling Iraq.
In each case, Bush's approval numbers have held stead
Abby, just click "OK" lightly, and once.
Lol, I love when liberals accuse their own liberal media of being biased to the right. It's a bit bizarre. So far, the crew of the ABC newsroom has contributed $110,000 to a Kerry victory and guess how much to Bush? $2000. NBC was a bit more fair. They contributed $140,000 to Kerry, and guess how much to Bush? The exorbitant sum of $0. What about fox news? The "super right wing station"? $100,000 Kerry, $6000 Bush. You guys need to get a grip on reality. You shouldn't make a scapegoat out of your own side.
Oops, pasted the whole page. Sorry
I should of just pointed out...
---------------------------------
AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Dead Heat
By RON FOURNIER
AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are locked in a tie for the popular vote, according to an Associated Press poll. Voters seem open to change in the White House - most disapprove of the president's performance at home and in Iraq - but still harbor doubts about making the switch.
Bush's strength continues to be in a perception by voters that he is the most qualified to protect the country, though his advantage has dwindled in recent weeks. Some 56 percent say the country is on the wrong track.
In the AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Sen. John Edwards got support from 49 percent of those who said they were likely to vote, and the Republican team of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney got 46 percent, within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Oct. 18-20 survey, released Thursday, included 976 likely voters.
A spate of other polls show the race tied or give Bush a slight lead nationwide. The presidency will go to whoever gets a majority of the 538 Electoral College votes, a state-by-state chase that is just as close as national surveys.
Thanks charlie, i think i have it now.
I think you missed the rest of the headline in you "John Stewart" story, Guy. The part that makes you accusing Walmart of bias look foolish. This is quote from the CNN headline "Wal-Mart canceled an order for a best-selling book by Jon Stewart and the writers of "The Daily Show" after executives learned that it contained a photo of nine naked, aged bodies, each with the superimposed head of a Supreme Court justice."
p.s. I'm trying out making a part of this bold, if you just see some funny marks, that's me screwing up... lol.
What planet are you living on, Steve? Not Earth, obviously.
Aww, it worked, but in the wrong place... I try again: "Wal-Mart canceled an order for a best-selling book by Jon Stewart and the writers of "The Daily Show" after executives learned that it contained a photo of nine naked, aged bodies, each with the superimposed head of a Supreme Court justice."
The Fox News / Opinion Dynamics Poll which shows Bush 49 Kerry 42 is a laugh to me. I couldn't take anything with Fox's name on it seriously. Their first question has to be: " Are you a Fox Cable News Viewer?" With those numbers, only Fox News Viewer are counted.
On the chattering news shows in the last few days, I've noticed a recurring theme with regard to the black vote. It seems that the pundits are spinning that Bush will get 18% of the African American vote, whereas he only earned 11% of that vote in 2000. The issue is gay marriage.
Anyway, the pundits are suggesting that Kerry is in trouble with blacks.
I haven't spoken to one person of color who is voting for Bush, so I don't from where this pseudo-theme is coming. Still, yet another angle they are trying to spin to prop Bush's numbers.
JennyftBlog-Thanks for the info on Win Back Respect. Hope you had a good birthday - you went to the beach, right?
Personally I don't believe any of the polls and I know I am right because God speaks through me, I pray a lot and God told me that Gore was supposed to be in office when September 11th happened. The repercusions of the attack and our countries reasoned response would have eventually led to peace in the middle east and a coming together of all the nations.
God has told me that he will assure a Kerry/Edwards landslide victory because he doesn't even like Bush and he is pretty sure that Cheney is worshipping the other guy.
God said forget the polls, he also said he was thinking about smiting that Diebold guy.
Now the entire nation knows there are naked pictures of the Supremes in Stewarts book, "America", and I can't find a damn copy of that book anywhere. Way to go, Walmart! You Bastards!!!!
I think this is worse than a case of AP taking one approach and Reuters taking another. It looks to me that both headlines are provided by Yahoo News. See how the one headline starts with "AP Poll:" and the other starts with "Reuters Poll:"? Of course, I could be wrong.
Sorry Mr. "Not you", that you see me pointing out facts that don't match your agenda as proof of my extraterrestrial existance. I wish that was really true, mind you. Living on Mars might be kinda cool, given all the right life support equipment.
Polls are a way to generate news which is not only meaningless, but carefully studied. Ok, sure, 800 people will certainly be representative of all goddamn voters. Where does the margin of error come from anyway? Is it the chance that one voter was trying to say/dial/write "Bush" but accidentally selected "Kerry"? Or that one person chose Bush as a goof?
Janurary 21, 2005:
"John F. Kerry was sworn in today after an election that came down to a 446-92 dead heat in the electoral college after capturing only 78% of the popular vote."
Steve aka troll doll:
Two things:
1) Who the network news personalities contribute does not necessarily correlate to how the news is presented. What a Charles Gibson or a Sean Hannity or a Katie Couric thinks personally about the candidates isn't what drives the media bias. It's what will draw viewers and what represents the corporation's best financial interest.
2)The subtle phrasing and use of certain words rather than others does tend to drive the discussions in a certain direction. Case in point: Wednesday, George Stephenopoulos and Charlie Gibson, discussing swing states and who may win them, twice referred to Kerry 'stealing' Ohio and Florida. Twice. You tell me there isn't an effort to create at least some doubt in someone's mind that Kerry is acting illegitimately. They are people who work with words for a living, for Christ's sake. They know the difference between 'take' or 'capture' and 'steal.'
Swearing makes you impotent...
A Russian scientist has warned excessive swearing causes women to turn into blokes ( e.g. Karen Hughes ) and blokes to lose wood ( e.g. Dick Cheney )
http://www.theregister.co.uk/200...otent_swearers/
Please Steve, provide some links for your "Facts." That someone told you it does not make it a fact.
(That someone told you it doesn't make it untrue either, but I'm dying to see what "evidence" backs up this assertion.)
We'll be waiting.
From a statistical point of view it is likely the margin of error is nonsense because the formula assumes a homogenous ("normally distributed") population. Seems wrong.
From a common sense point of view, as well, the margin of error is nonsense. Because the differnt polls are further apart than the margin.
spinoza -
Thank you so much! I actually went out to dinner and then went to the beach, all bundled up, late at night. Very cold, but lots of windswept fun.
*
Anyone see the aol straw poll? AOL Time Warner is hardly republican. Maybe one of you guys want to explain that.
I live in Ohio. The ads by rethug party are brutal to Kerry. They are accusing him of responsible for everything that is going wrong now including 9-11. Kerry and democratic ads are more about jobs, social security, medicare.
Steve says that he is pointing out "FACTS". Steve does not provide link for said "FACTS". Steve not understand what word "FACT" means. If Steve did, he would know that "FACTS" have an anti-bush bias.
Steve would like to live on Mars.
Steve have problem with reality.
Steve in for big disappointment on Nov. 2nd.
Poor Steve. Poor, poor Steve.
Sigh. Thanks, Steve, for...uh...whatever it is you were doing...for...uh...whatever reason you were doing it. Real helpful. Real on-topic, too.
Even if Steve is correct about contributions from the newsroom it does not explain the reporting bias. Any social psychologists out there? Obedience to authority maybe? Seems unlikely. And Steve assumes that a newsroom is a democracy when there are people called EDITORS and OWNERS. Maybe that is where the bias or obedience is. Steve assumes the a vote in the newsroom (using $$) reflects the result. If that were the case, then Gore would be president now. A majority of us who voted did NOT get who we wanted. So Steve is just a little shallow in his connecting the dots. Nothing wrong with that. Run off to a community college and get re-educated. Courtesy of No Jobs Left Behind.
Polls, schmoles. What exactly is the PURPOSE in a contest this close to keep looking at polling data? Are there really people out there who go into the voting booth intending to "vote for the winner"???? Is some guy gonna turn on his car radio on the way to the polling station and think, "Oh shit, Gallup has Bush up by six, I'd better vote for him"???
I'm not participating in anymore useless chatter about polling. So there.
This just in from CNN:
According to a Gallop (I believe it was) poll: 61% of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
And according to a Harvard poll of college students nationwide: Kerry leads Bush 59% to 35% among college students. Nader at 1%.
I haven't spoken to one person of color who is voting for Bush, so I don't from where this pseudo-theme is coming.
So you don't talk to Condi, Clarence, Alan or Colin much?
Thanks for this post, Atrios. I was just about to shoot you an e-mail asking why in the hell the headline on the Yahoo news story of the new AP Poll reported a "tie" whenever leads within the margin of error in favor of Bush are labeled as "Bush leads" by the same outfit.
"Liberal" media, my ass.
ummm, krsaz,
sounds like you're writing a children's book @ 3:56 PM.
Funny!
Go Dog GO!
According to this article, Kerry has taken a 7-point lead over Bush among white Catholics ... a +26 point bounce for the senator since the debates began.
Bush won this demographic in 2000, and it's key in the upper midwest states. If Kerry can keep it going, Dubya's in deep trouble.
MOE's Explained
If you want to take journalists to task for screwing up MOE's, KEvin Drum's MOE primer is a must-read.
if a trip to baghdad is the Oct surprise in order to boost his polls, its easily sabotaged.
just start a whispering campaign on the net that reaches the streets of the green zone that he's coming, whether its confirmed or not. if theres a remote possibilty that the trip is known to the insurgents, it will be aborted
From a statistical point of view it is likely the margin of error is nonsense because the formula assumes a homogenous ("normally distributed") population. Seems wrong. From a common sense point of view, as well, the margin of error is nonsense. Because the differnt polls are further apart than the margin.
-prwax
Thank you! It's like they're doing a t test on whether to launch the shuttle.
standa,
Swearing makes you impotent...
I thought it makes men horny. My bad.
Anyone see the aol straw poll? AOL Time Warner is hardly republican. Maybe one of you guys want to explain that.
Steve
Margin of error; weighting of sample (bearing in mind that the sampling technique itself excludes a number of potential voters); interpretation of data (to include intended voters or registered ones? Will more voters register than have been taken into account?), etc.
In short, the pollsters are prepared for the last election, not the next.
The WaPo this morning had a poll graphic that was doubly deceptive. Not only did it call a three-point 50-47 lead (within the MoE) a Bush lead, it also had a scale that started with 40 and ended with 60, so that visually it looked like Bush was WAAAAYYY ahead. It was plain irresponsible.
I think if the media keeps saying Bush is up slightly, More dems. show up, if the media says Kerry, more repubs will show up. If the rethugs think everything is going alright in Iraq then they are certainly going to believe Bush is winning in the polls, so no need to vote.
.....just hoping
what's the difference between iWaq and Viet Nam?
Dick Cheney only had to screw Lynne to get out of Viet Nam
I swore I was through giving money this season, but MoveOn is raising money to show a fantastic ad
with footage of Bush joking about finding weapons of mass destruction and a young woman whose brother died searching for those weapons I dug a little deeper and sent them some love. If you can too, it would be great.
"AOL Time Warner is hardly republican."
Bawahahahahahahahahahahaha
OMG, delusion much?
new thread is up
Living on Mars might be kinda cool, given all the right life support equipment.
like a bush asshat and an IV of hannity bukakke?
Considering that I got the info off the radio, I don't have links, but I'll look for you guys... being that you are so desperate to deny any facts that make you wrong.
Damn, that should be +23 point bounce. In other words, a statistical tie. 
Hecate -
I got that moveon email this morning and mentioned it on another thread. It is a powerful statement, isn't it? I hope it gets the airplay it deserves.
*
http://www.funderdata.com/news.asp
Speaking of the Catholic vote, I got a letter from some bishops in Michigan yesterday strongly suggesting that Catholics in good standing vote for Proposal 2, which is the anti-gay marriage ammendment.
The pamphlet cited quotes from the Bible.
Additionally, several friends have reported to me that their priests are encouraging them to vote for Bush, both from the pulpit and in private conversations. Not all priests, however, feel that way.
And this is exactly why I am no longer a practicing Catholic. Keep your damned morality out of the political process.
Let's all get Real and see the media's pathetic bias for what it really is--as in, "What part of denial ain't just a river in Egypt are you guys as yet unfamiliar with?"
With enough careful monitoring of the vote everywhere, we should all expect a great deal of shock and chagrin by neocon pundits everywhere, making them feel almost homeless...
My bone finger is firmly in the air in public here in Orange County, Ca. On Sept 1, I installed 18 solar panels on my roof, which generates between 5 and 15 kWH per day. That's my statement. I'm now in the process of negotiating a better buyback deal with Edison. To me, that's sorta the heart of the matter, no matter who gets selected. Liberation is an individual matter. Edison and I now see eye-to-eye, ain't no 'predator-prey' relationship any more.
If the media, like the Bushies, back away from really getting to know us, the common people I guess it's really their own problem. If they choose to ignore us, as Dylan says, "It's a hard rain, gonna fall."
We need to begin generating a Peace Agenda, in spite of what's going on and in the face of all these sick, violent warmongering conservatives. It starts by insisting our reps engage the "enemy" (whoever they now think that is) directly and in public, in dialogue based on mutual respect. We have every right to expect nothing less from our public servants!
As my friend Keb' Mo' sings, Why don't we talk to each other, talk to each other that's all?"
Wiley
Anyone see the aol straw poll? AOL Time Warner is hardly republican. Maybe one of you guys want to explain that.
Steve | Email | Homepage | 10.21.04 - 3:55 pm | #
1. Ted Turner, the man largely responsible for the "liberal" reputation of Time Warner, is no longer affiliated with the company. While not necessarily as biased a source as Strategic Vision, AOL/TW is hardly a lefty source.
2. Web polls are notoriously inaccurate, straw polls even more so, this one especially because of 3, 4, and 5 below
3. AOL polls can only be filled out by AOL users, so they represent only the opinion of AOL users
4. AOL users skew "stupid" or else they'd be on a real online service
5. Stupid people (as evidenced by yourself) skew Republican.
Thanks for playing, though, Steve. Are you the same person as the "Steve in CO" troll, or should I be really careful not to name any of my children Steve?
Oh well. But then again, if Kerry is declared by the newspapers as having a lead, then I think it won't be long now before we hear another terrorist warnings or terror alerts.
So which would you rather prefer, media stoking this admin for a mythical lead, or another terrorist alerts or terrorist warning ?
I swore I was through giving money this season, but MoveOn is raising money to show a fantastic ad
you damn right! WOW!, this ad is powerful. I wish they could show it in every state.
Vicki:
I figured considering the intelligence level of his posts, I would put it in terms he might understand, like see spot run. My six year old daughter has a better grasp of politics and nuance than Steve/troll.
Considering that I got the info off the radio, I don't have links, but I'll look for you guys... being that you are so desperate to deny any facts that make you wrong.
Steve | Email | Homepage | 10.21.04 - 4:07 pm | #
Wow, coming in late, I see you've just been filling this thread with nonsense.
It's not so much that we're "desperate to deny facts" that allegedly make us wrong... it's more that we don't tend to put much stock in the unsourced claims of internet trolls. If the facts are out there, you can source your assertions; if you can't source your assertions, they're not a matter of fact. And if you don't have facts, you don't have proof. Period.
If you're going to insist on your "facts," don't expect us to do your homework for you you lazy bastard. A URL is not a fact.
We're still waiting Steve...
Has Rove given up on Ohio? Going with plan B by focusing on WI and IA?
A dkos diarist nevadadem thinks so.
Does Kerry have a plan to counter this plan?
Dkos:
Are the 3 most important states in this election right now. After reading Kerry spot a GOP blog I've become convinced that Bush is slowly giving up on Ohio and Penn, even Gallup shows us ahead in Ohio and they know the turnout model is a disaster for them but they have another way to win and break our harts again. Wisc and Iowa are overwhelmingly white and demographically trending against us, the economy isn't as bad either. Thier strategy is now to hold Fla win all other red states exept NH and take Iowa and Wisc which went to Gore by a statistically insignificant margin in 2000. That's there endgame right now and WE MUST counter, what would be worse than winning Ohio and losing anyway. they are going all out to win Wisc, Iowea and the chink in thier new plan Nevada which if it turns blue would ruin the no Ohio scenerio. I think we need to subtly shift some focus from Ohio and the big 3 to the upper midwest, we have a huge advantage in Wisc with same day Registration and we may need every vote we can get.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this!!! I hate this fascist pigs - it's always a "lead" for Bush and a "dead heat" or "tie" for Kerry. Lord I hope that the Nickelodeon kids vote is not only accurate with the winner (Kerry), but that it's accurate with the range (57% Kerry). That would be SOO wonderful . . .
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this!!! I hate this fascist pigs - it's always a "lead" for Bush and a "dead heat" or "tie" for Kerry. Lord I hope that the Nickelodeon kids vote is not only accurate with the winner (Kerry), but that it's accurate with the range (57% Kerry). That would be SOO wonderful . . .
Don't feed the Steve troll.
It is definitely not part of the "reality-based" community.
I got that moveon email this morning and mentioned it on another thread
JftB,
Sorry, I missed your earlier comment. It's the best ad I've seen this entire season and I really hope it runs in all the battleground states.
Bush and Rove will never get WI.
Steve
Which AOL straw poll are you talking about? Are you talking about their electoral vote map that got freeped about a month and went overnight to showing Bush carrying everything except the District of Columbia? Check out the Congress.org Pledge your Vote poll that did the same thing in late May or early June. Kerry has crawled back all summer and now leads with about 330 electoral votes.
Oh -- and I've been watching AOL polls for years now (I'm one of those hopeless computer fuckwads who are aol members and don't leave) and AOL members almost consistently show a right-leaning bias.
Hey, credit where due; Stevetroll had the guts to admit that he "heard it on the radio."
Now if he might consider that everything he hears on the radio might not be true...
C'mon Steve- Kerry/Edwards!!
The problem is reporting poll numbers even-handedly would interfere with the narrative of "Bush - the Popular War-Time Presiden"™.
(I'm one of those hopeless computer fuckwads who are aol members and don't leave) and AOL members almost consistently show a right-leaning bias.
Me, too, toonscribe. I've been on aol for 8+ years. It's right leaning, but it's too convenient. I really do need to give it up now.
Well, it's even less accurate than that. Saying that the poll result was X for Bush with margin of error 3% implies to many people that the 'truth', or true percentage of people who intend to vote for Bush in the american population is within X+/-3%.
However, (think bayesian here), you have to precede this sentence with the statement "Given that our polling technique is accurate, we are 95% confident that the truth is x +/-3%". Do you see what I mean. The reported margin of error only tells you something about the level of variability in their data. It doesn't tell you anything about the validity of the polling technique. The people that they chose to poll, the way they read their questions, etc. do not go into this margin of error. Someone could have a poll where they call households at 1pm when only retired people are at home, and they could sample thousands to get their margin of error way down, but it doesn't say anything about the accuracy technique. Only the difference you see between polling techniques could give you data for that.
Hecate -
I'm glad you put up the link. I hope it gets posted on every thread today, on every blog. BTW, this is one ad I wish wasn't reserved just for swing states. It's so killer everyone should experience it.
*
Of course everything you hear on the radio is not true, neither is everything you see on tv true. In fact, the most unreliable source of all is... LINKS FROM THE INTERNET. I don't see how you want me to back up a more reliable source (news portion of KABC) with a less reliable source (internet links). But I'll give it a try, if that's what you want.
Steve seems like a nice fellow. Do we have an extra coat or a piece of chewing gum we can give him?
(I'm one of those hopeless computer fuckwads who are aol members and don't leave) and AOL members almost consistently show a right-leaning bias.
Me, too, toonscribe. I've been on aol for 8+ years. It's right leaning, but it's too convenient. I really do need to give it up now.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.21.04 - 4:23 pm | #
Hope my earlier comment wasn't too arrogant. By "skew stupid" I hoped to suggest that not everyone on AOL was an idiot, but it was certainly a more concentrated pool of stupidity than the net in general. There are a lot of people who use AOL because it's easy, not because they're stupid.
Again sorry if I ruffled any feathers (besides Steve's).
headline poll Kerry Bush MOE
21-Oct Bush, Kerry in Dead Heat AP-Ipsos 49 46 3
21-Oct Kerry Improves Image Among Voters Pew 47 47 3.5
8-Oct Kerry Takes Lead Over Bush in AP Poll AP-Ipsos 50 46 3
7-Oct AP Poll: Kerry Holds Small Lead Over Bush AP-Ipsos 50 46 3
4-Oct Opinion Polls Show Bush and Kerry Equal Newsweek 47 45 4
4-Oct Poll Says Bush Still Has Edge Over Kerry Pew 44 49 4
2-Oct Bush Raps Kerry, Slips in Newsweek Poll Newsweek 47 45 4
Of course everything you hear on the radio is not true, neither is everything you see on tv true. In fact, the most unreliable source of all is... LINKS FROM THE INTERNET. I don't see how you want me to back up a more reliable source (news portion of KABC) with a less reliable source (internet links). But I'll give it a try, if that's what you want.
Steve | Email | Homepage | 10.21.04 - 4:27 pm | #
Your source for the assertion, at this moment, is not KABC. Your source is "I say so," because you haven't provided any documentation that this "fact" appeared on KABC. Astonishingly, although joeblow.com is not a particularly reliable source of information, actual news outlets such as, oh, every major print, radio, or television news outlet, as well as the syndication services themselves, maintain(s) an internet presence. THAT is how you reliably source with links.
Jesus, I should be collecting tuition from this kid.
Mr. Toonscribe, thx for the link. I did go to congress.org and post my vote ... for Bush. It's seems that he's winning there too, although not as much as in the aol poll. I understand that aol users may be right leaning, but before the Republican conv, that poll had Kerry and Bush close... even Kerry winning at times. The fact that it suddenly turned almost all red should say something. I doubt that right after the Republican convention a bunch of members of the VRWC (Vast right wing conspiracy) suddenly joined aol just to vote on that poll.
I've been complaining about this
exact thing for weeks. It's not like we can't see what the Media whores are doing.
This morning, Wolf Blitzer was sorely disappointed that Jeff Greenfield didn't want to waste his time on "librariangate."
Wolf Blitzer is a whore. His pwnage by Jon Stewart was one of the most beautiful interviews ever featured on TDS, lagging only behind his thrashings of Stephen Hayes and Henry Bonilla. Oddly enough, bringing gifts on-set seems to incense Jon.
What the f*** were those state polls showed by Judy Woodworth today?
Bush up by 8 in Michigan? NOW WAY. Bush has never lead here..not even after his "convention"!
Kerry has a 10 point lead here.
Both the NBC poll and the Pew poll have Bush's approval at 44%...which is death for Bush.
I have never heard this once today. Good to see Kerry up by 3 in the AP poll.
Remember Time/CNN had Bush by 6 going into the 2000 election.
Actually, my source in the assertion, is KABC, unless you are simply calling me a liar. I've noticed that when confronted with unpleasent facts, most liberals simply resort to character attacks. So, either you are a character assassinating liberal that can't deal with anything that contridicts your worldview, or you are telling me that some links on the internet, are just simply more reliable than an established and credible news service like KABC... (a liberal blog maybe, or a liberal blog in disguise... CNN? Or do you think I should go to the CBS website and quote Dan Rather?)
Wonder how much time will be spent in tonight's news about how Fidel Castro fell and cracked his knee after giving a speech at one of his rallies? (it's number one story on Google News atm).
In fact, the most unreliable source of all is... LINKS FROM THE INTERNET.
WRONG. The most reputable online sources are far more reliable than TV or Radio, because you can apply analysis to them, where as the other two media are a WYSIWYG experience. Of course, the worst of the internet (like LGF or FR) is much, much worse than the average TV program too. But being only concerned with the truth, you've applied analytical scrutiny to the multi-head hydra that is the internet, and not just waved it off because of prejudice, haven't you Steve?
And you also realise that people here aren't even attacking TV/Radio, but your own testimony instead, yes? Because if there's one thing even more unreliable than eyewitness testimony, it's testimony given by a committed ideologue whose recent behaviour does not encourage faith in his testimonial validity...
But one last point for our resident social scientist; when talking about whether the media is left or right, who would be most likely to have the more accurate understanding; Someone on the Right stating that the media is on the Left, or someone who actually IS on the Left, but doesn't believe the media shares their viewpoint?
int argc
No offense taken. I know I should get off AOL, but I'm just too lazy. I've been a member for about 12 years and don't even remember half the people I would have to notify if I changed. Every now and then I get business-related e-mail from people I'd forgotten I'd contacted in the past. Also, if I got off AOL, who do I go with? It's like trying to pick a damn cell phone company -- so many choices and everyone tells you theirs is the best service.
Nader's Own Group Dumps Him:
From http://thoughtcrimes.org today
Nader's Raiders Dump Ralph
Nader's Raiders revolt
Salon.com
Many of us -- former Nader's Raiders and leaders of his organizations -- voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Many did not.
This November, none of us will vote for Ralph. We believe there is nothing more important than defeating George W. Bush. Ralph argues that he is creating an independent political voice. In 2000, when he ran as the Green Party candidate, that may have been true.
In 2004, as the candidate of the increasingly reactionary, anti-immigrant Reform Party, and the recipient of financial and political support from right-wing funders and operatives, it is not credible. Unfortunately, Ralph is party to a disingenuous effort to split the progressive vote in key states.
With the major party candidates in a dead heat, Nader is poised to tip the election to Bush -- again. We do not agree with Ralph that there is little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We know that the country cannot afford another four years of Republicans controlling the White House, both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court and the entire federal Judiciary. The price of a protest vote is too high for families who live from paycheck to paycheck, for those concerned about the realities of war, for those who lack decent jobs and access to health care, and for the environment.
While Ralph has pursued politically expedient alliances with the right wing, truly progressive leaders -- from peace activists to unions to former Dean supporters -- have made substantial progress organizing within the Democratic Party. United, progressives can build a base for a transformed party funded by small donors, imbued with progressive values and energized by a vision of a democratic majority. Divided, we will give four more years to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft. The progressive vote can be the key to this election.
We know Ralph Nader better than anyone else. We were inspired to public service by his vision and his integrity. Now we are disappointed and saddened to see him embrace the support of reactionary forces who oppose everything we and Ralph have fought for and whose real agenda is to re-select George Bush.
Join us. Cast your vote for a progressive future and support John Kerry."
Steve, I'm not necessarily calling you mendacious, I'm saying that your faith in the figures you quote is quite likely misplaced. Now - enough already.
Spotted words to that effect myself, Terry C.
Steve,
You were listening to the radio and quickly wrote down all those numbers. You see rarely does someone quote the radio as a source because it's hard to accurately translate it to your post without a transcript. Were you driving in your car listening to the radio? I wonder why people seem to think that your full of shit.
Actually, my source in the assertion, is KABC, unless you are simply calling me a liar. I've noticed that when confronted with unpleasent facts, most liberals simply resort to character attacks. So, either you are a character assassinating liberal that can't deal with anything that contridicts your worldview, or you are telling me that some links on the internet, are just simply more reliable than an established and credible news service like KABC... (a liberal blog maybe, or a liberal blog in disguise... CNN? Or do you think I should go to the CBS website and quote Dan Rather?)
Steve | Email | Homepage | 10.21.04 - 4:39 pm | #
I am not calling and have not called you a liar, although you conservatives certainly are touchy when contradicted, aren't you? I'll keep this one slow: I DO NOT ACCEPT UNSOURCED ASSERTIONS. That goes for lefties, righties, centrists, I don't care. You HAVE NOT proven that your quote appeared on KABC. Perhaps you are illiterate, but to reiterate, there are plenty of RELIABLE sources which maintain web sites, on which they re-publish their reportage from the newspaper, the radio, television programs, etc. "Liberal blogs" will rarely if ever make factual claims without linking to one of these sources. You know that links are the words with underlines that you can click on, right? In any case, your crude sneer at Dan Rather, who's been covering news for probably more years than you have been alive, shows that you aren't worth my tutelage. So here's to hoping that one day you can save enough to buy a fucking clue.
Steve -
KABC radio? Were you listening to sean hannity, by chance?
*
Steve @ 3:42
How much $ does all that free right bent air time translate to?
I don't care how long he (Dan Rather) has been doing news, spinning left (but feigning inpartiality) for more years than I've been alive doesn't make someone credible. Additionally, I did source what I said, I SOURCED KABC. So if you don't believe me, you are calling me a liar, because you are telling me that I'm LYING ABOUT MY SOURCE. If "getting a fucking (btw, nice use of obscenity, really strengthens your point... taking your hint from the Kerry team?) clue" involves conforming to a monolithic liberal viewpoint, I'd rather stay clueless.
Steve, others won't do it, but I will, you're full of shit and a lying piece of crap, go fuck yourself with Bill O'Reily's dildo.
Hi Jenny.
No, actually it was in between breaks on the Al Rantel Show, I don't know who the "news and traffic" people's names are. Usually they have Peter Jennings, but this guy wasn't him.
I doubt that right after the Republican convention a bunch of members of the VRWC (Vast right wing conspiracy) suddenly joined aol just to vote on that poll.
Bwhahahah!
You don't have to join AOL to freep the poll. You could be a long-time AOL member and wait until then to freep the poll. Are you really as stupid as you seem to be?
Wow Krsaz, that's just such a brilliant arguement, I can't understand why more than 50% of the country doesn't want to be associated with your liberal friends.
Hecate, you still have to be an AOL member, right?
Toonscribe,
It all depends on how you use AOL. There are some things that they offer that are difficult to replace with another service, or at least, there were back when my family left AOL in 1994 (I was still a high-schooler then). I've been hearing decent things about Earthlink, if dial-up is your gig, but I have to admit that my girlfriend and I now plunk down the $40/mo for broadband (cable modem) which is not necessarily something everyone can afford or at least can make a priority. In most every area there are a lot of cheap local services, as well. My parents now use something called ISP.com I think, which is incredibly cheap (like $9.95/mo). That'll basically give you a no-frills internet connection: access to the web through your favorite browser, some email mailboxes you can check with your favorite email client, and of course if you want chat there's still IRC (although it's a little less civil than I remember AOL Groups being).
Steve
Yes, Bush is ahead in the popular vote at Congress.org -- 51.5 to 47.3. But you didn't scroll down to look at the trend line which has been going against Bush ever since the poll got freeped -- at the time it got freeped, Bush led 67 to 33 and he has been going down consistently all summer. The latest the trend line currently goes back is August 30, when Bush's lead was 55.2 to 43.8. And you obviously didn't click on the electoral vote tally which has Kerry 350 and Bush 180. Not a good sign for your guy.
Int argc, DSL is cheaper, although a little slower. I waste my money on cable too, though. They give you 3 months free (or cheap) then they raise the price to $49.95 a month (well at least comcast does in my area). I think you can manage a decent dsl connection (512K) for $30 a month. You should try dsl extreme.
And still no source for your drivel, I'm sure you would prefer to remain clueless.
Steve, let me ask you a question, why are you here on this particular site posting these particular posts, are you trying to help us see the light of a good republican agenda?
You see, you are a troll, and dealing with trolls is delicate, you obviously don't want to have a discussion, you just want to accuse us dastardly liberals of being dastardly liberals. Ok, you got us, you win, I a liberal. Happy now? Good. Now, go away.
hi krsaz. your girls have a nice dad.
*
Steve,
This is the last time I'm posting for your miserable edification. Calling you a liar would be taking a position on the veracity of your statement. So would accepting your statement as fact. I take NO POSITION WHATSOEVER on the veracity of your claim. I merely point out that, if you're telling the truth, you ought to be able to point to another source which I can see that says the same thing. In Law and Order terms, your statement is hearsay--which I reject for the same reason a judge would.
In any case, your facile stupidity and crude invective amply demonstrate why more than 50% of the country wants nothing to do with you OR your illegitimate candidate. You need a fucking clue because you are not just stupid, you are wilfully stupid. I have explained my self 3 times to you, in more or less an identical fashion, in such a way that none of the rational participants of this thread are in any way confused about my claim, and you just. don't. get it. Then again... repeatedly articulating a perfectly clear position for the edification of morons... I should be glad you don't call me a flip-flopper.
I can't understand why more than 50% of the country doesn't want to be associated with your liberal friends.
You don't understand a lot of things, do you Steve? And apparently, correct weighting of evidential sources is one of them.
So far you've quoted something you heard on the radio, but been unable to find any further sources, even Internet sources, to back up the claims you believed you heard upon it. And this is despite some of the claims being patently absurd. Do you want to know why nobody is taking you seriously here? On the basis of the numbers you quoted, you imply that Fox News (yes, THAT Fox News), leans Democratic. Which it plainly does not. And which thus makes a complete mockery of your argument, even if you've gotten your figures right. Which you are unlikely to have done, due to the already mentioned problems with personal testimony. Which you refuse to address.
There's a reason why 90% (accurate to 1/Steve'th of a unit) of the best and brightest in any country are liberal, Steve. You and your friends are a good illustration of why.
Steve, showld we believe that Bush is god's son becuase that is what I heard on KAWC on fat pig rush programm.
You are a liar, and quoting the radio station to cover up your lies, why don't you name the programme where you get this socaled truth. You right wing lunatica are liars, when confronted always resort to namecalling. Go hide in your right wing lunatic hole. You moron.
Steve - you've got a cable internet connection...why don't you use it to find and cite a source.
No, actually it was in between breaks on the Al Rantel Show ...was it a commercial? I'm confused, break = commercial and inbetween breaks = Al Rantel saying it. What on earth do you mean?
int argc
Thanks for the advice. I hope to be able to go broadband soon -- I've been waiting until I could get a decent writing gig here in the Bush economy (been waiting about 4 years now).
the advice is no problem, i'm always happy to run OT about technology
here's to hoping you get that writing gig very soon. no one should have to settle for dial-up, and definitely no one should be stuck looking for work for 4 years!
except bush, that is. let him suffer as we have!
Oops. The Anonymous up there for int argc about waiting for broadband was me. Haloscan eats my name.
Jenny:
Thanks that's nice of you to say. My kids are good loyal Kerry supporters, I taught Maya (6 year old) to say BUSH IS SCARY, VOTE FOR KERRY! when she was five, she does it in this little singsong voice and it is the cutest thing in the world. My 11 year old is very concerned with politics and she watched the debates with me, I asked her what she thought and she said, "the president looks confused most of the time, that's not good."
Here's a few reality based sources for our pal Steve: Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program, Supported al Qaeda and Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions or perhaps Steve can only manage to read a quick synopsis from Salon
Anyhoo, just thought I'd share what most of us already know: Bush supporters ain't bright and easily suckered into believing lies. Just thought I'd point this out to Steve.
Whoops, embedded the wrong link for Salon the synopsis is here
Steve might want to check this out:
http://www.pipa.org/
OnlineReport...10_21_04.html#1
Then again, maybe he woudln't....
Actually, the margin of error is the confidence interval around the sample mean. This is the area in which you can be X% sure that the population mean occurs, for some X confidence level. For a 95% confidence level, it'll be the range of values from 1.64 standard deviations below the mean to 1.64 standard deviations above the mean. If you're using a 99% confidence level, it'll be -1.96 to +1.96. Whatever confidence level you're using, the margin of error is this range. If the two means you're comparing have a difference greater than this margin of error, the difference is considered statistically significant at the X% confidence level.
Atrios is right that the means have to be about 2 standard deviations apart, but this is the same as the margin of error. I think he was confusing the margin of error with the standard deviation.
So in summary, if there's a 3% margin of error, then the means are significantly different if they differ by more than 3%.
Here's a website that discusses this:
http://www.robertniles.com/stats...ts/
margin.shtml
Reporters don't understand statistics. Don't have to take stats in reporter school. So, most reporters are of the innumerate class.
Ed - Add to that the fact that the talking heads on tv are not reporters and never went to journalism schools.
That, in my opinion, is one of the major problems with the media reporting news. None of the people "reporting" are actually reporters.
correction: the margin of error is half the confidence interval. the confidence interval is the mean +/- the margin of error.
Did anyone notice that CNN and MSNBC websites always post Bush's pic(?) They hardly ever post Kerry's pic. Media is incumbant biased or too effing scared of the chimp polics...
Did anyone notice that CNN and MSNBC websites always post Bush's pic(?) They hardly ever post Kerry's pic. Media is incumbant biased or too effing scared of the chimp polics...
anyways, the point is that leads within the MOE are reported as leads for Bush, but they are reported as statistical ties for Kerry. I was thinking this earlier today after looking at the Zogby/Reuters numbers, and was happy to see that it pissed off Atrios too.
if the difference is less than the MOE, then it's not statistically significant. the media just want the story of an ever-changing lead, but it's just noise they're reporting.
Here's how our public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or ABC, reported the campaign yesterday:
"While Kerry gets applause at his rallies, Bush gets OVATIONS" (not verbatim but comes close). Not a mention that those ovations come from hand-picked audiences of course! Infuriating!!
Hecate, you still have to be an AOL member, right?
Moron,
That wasn't what you said. You said that you doubted a bunch of people joined AOL to freep the poll. I pointed out that you didn't have to join AOL to freep the poll. You can't dispute that, so you raise a red herring. Smarter trolls, please!
"...the pundits are suggesting that Kerry is in trouble with blacks."
Absolute BS! Go check Zogby.com - (The African American Vote - 10/20/04). Kerry has just as much support among African Americans as Gore did (and maybe more considering higher turnout expectations).
Another desperate (and possibly effective?) attempt to depress the Democratic vote... brought to you by the RNC!
(Whoops, that was supposed to say MSNBC/CNN/etc).
I don't necessarily agree with Steve that the media is a liberal entity, but I also don't think he should perform self-coitus for his beliefs.
It's hard to be self-righteous when you're a bigger dick than the person you're arguing with.
Steve had numbers and a source to back up his claims. Instead of writing obsceneties at him for disagreeing with you, why not do a little research? Maybe he misinterpreted the numbers, maybe he's got them dead-on correct. Why don't we find out? Are we afraid to find out?
CNN seems to always quote a poll that is the most favorable to Bush and no one there is more guilty in framing poll questions then Paula Zahn. She will say something like the polls show the senator down by 6 points how in the world is your candidate going to make that up. She was on the other night with a poll result on character, I think the numbers were 42 - 47 Bush, Paula says only 42% of the repondents trust Senator Kerry where nearly half trust the president. I mean she couldn't just give the numbers.
Also, my personal opinion is that the media has both liberal and conservative bias.
Social issues definitely get a liberal bias in the media. It's definitely more difficult to see racism and gay-bashing get a positive spin in the news. Same with abortion; you don't see a huge push by the media to outlaw abortion.
Most lefties don't think about this, but this really is seen as a huge defeat by right wing people. They see this huge threat from minorities and gays taking what's rightfully theirs. They see the media as a group pandering to their enemies.
The percieved right-wing bias comes into play regarding the economy, war, and class warfare. The purpose of the news is to convince us that everything is OK on these fronts. They want us to fight amongst ourselves on social issues, but agree on the things that will keep the money in the pockets of the richest americans.
Right wing people don't mind these things because they have always been like this, and putting food on the table isn't as big of an issue as reducing the ability of a black person to do the same.
Liberal people mind these things because they feel that there were "good ol" days. They yearn for the times when there was more economic justice and wars weren't started for stupid reasons.
Truth is, the same model has persisted for (at least) centuries: Rich people have everything, but give poor people just enough so that they won't do anything rash like revolt.
(please excuse my insane ramblings)
Still, that confidence interval only tells you the range that you can be certain that you real population mean lies within *given* that you don't have a biased sampling procedure. Scientists and social scientists very frequently take a measurement and report their classical statistics for their data, and then later on gain some insight that they should have been sampling in another way.
If you have a been of 1000s of balls and really 30% are red and 70% are blue, and you sample 100, you can generate your confidence interval of sample mean and the range that your real population mean must lie within.
However, if the red balls are lower density and seem to be more likely on the top of the bowl, then your mean and interval will be wrong.
Hence, there are dozens of factors which could cause the real population mean of likely Bush voters to be well outside the phone poll mean plus margin of error. The margin of error assumes that the poll is sampling randomly from the voter pool.
Honking it, iteresting take on liberals. Some observations... the majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose, most Americans believe that gays shouldn't be discriminated against, (but are against marriage, for giving them benefits, like health, etc.), and say they are against racism. Also, most liberals do not pine for the good ole days, that's what conservatives do- progressives and liberals have been pointing out the inequities in society since the dawn of agriculture,
interesting
for clarity: most are for giving them, (gays) health benefits, etc. just not willing to let them marry.
WalMart cancels order for Jon Stewart's "America" book.
Tell me this isn't political....
It's not political. There are a lot of things you can get at Wal-Mart, but porn - or anything that smacks of porn - is not one of them.
Wal-Mart had Kitty Kelley at deep discount a week after it rolled off the presses. Wal-Mart has the best price I've seen on the Big Dog's book.
Jimmy Breslin had a great column today on polls and the media.
Everybody maintains that the two candidates are in a statistical dead heat. Nobody knows that. With a huge number of new registered voters, overwhelmingly of color, and young, and with 40 million using cell phones, the only thing going on in this election is how many times George Bush goes under before he drowns on Election Day. As he should. He is the worst president we have had, maybe ever.
. . . .
In the week ending Oct. 17, there were 23 American soldiers killed in Iraq. I saw no prominent mention anywhere. If there were 23 policemen killed in New York in a week, the city would shut down. If there were 23 police officers killed in the nation in a week, it would be a national calamity.
You're not the only one to notice the inconsistency in poll reporting by the SCLM.
It's been driving me crazy.
i heard a poll on msnbc today that said 75% of all female cable news gals are vacuous twits. that sounds low to me.
there should be some consistency
be careful what you wish for -- the distortions in the presentation of the distorted poll results have been consistent with the bias and distortions in the news articles.
there has also been a marked consistency in the distortions between the headlines and the contents of the article themselves, on the one hand, and on the distortions in the interpretation of the poll results, on the other.
the NYT's has been notorious in the former over the last two (three?) years.
No imagination,
First off, thanks for not telling me to have sex with myself.
When I refer to the good ol' days, I mean the sixties, where we often have value of minimum wage in 1970 favorably compared to the value of minimum wage today. For some reason some people seem to believe that we had it a lot better around that time.
But yes, I agree with you that conservatives want the good ol' days, and that's strictly referring to the subjugation of women, gays, and minorities (i.e. social issues).
I heard on CBS national news radio earlier today that Bush and Kerry were in a dead heat, according to the AP poll. I remember thinking, "Gee, I thought Kerry was 3 points ahead." You're right Atrios. Why don't they give Kerry credit for a lead in the polls?
Honking it, I'm an irregular eschatonian who prefers to "knock" people with logic, facts, or anything other than ad hominem attacks. Profanity is only good when you've smacked your thumb with a hammer, (or something like that).
I will say that there is nothing wrong with wishing for better economic conditions ala the 70's. However, I think many liberals recognize that the 60s or 70s were not ideal eras- examples, there are less blacks in poverty today than then, the air is cleaner, etc. What I think they long for is an extenuation of the good works or policies that were implemented during those eras that have created the gains we have experienced. The fact is that Reagan represented, and set as policy, a backlash against the policies of those eras, attacking affirmative action, the ERA, the EPA, etc. Also, the fact is that real wages have been declining, less folks have health care coverage, which has become more expensive, and provisions of the Clean Air act are being rolled back, (to name a few). So, what I see is the perpetual struggle for equity. Maybe, what liberals and progressives desire most, nostalgia wise, is that more people would become more informed and actively involved and in the affairs of the State, which may be idealistic, but I see nothing wrong with wishing for it to be so.
Can we say, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
heard a poll on msnbc today that said 75% of all female cable news gals are vacuous twits. that sounds low to me.
Anonymous
I think they said, "Crapulous twats."
And please remember, that the margin of error doesn't refer to the poll's accuracy. the margin of error only tracks the relation of the sample to the larger voting population - the degree to which the sample might represent the voting public. So a poll with .5% margin of error can still be -and often is - catastrophically wrong. The validity of a poll depends on lots of things like how the questions are worded, which don't factor in to the margin of error figure.
And please remember, that the margin of error doesn't refer to the poll's accuracy. the margin of error only tracks the relation of the sample to the larger voting population - the degree to which the sample might represent the voting public. So a poll with .5% margin of error can still be -and often is - catastrophically wrong. The validity of a poll depends on lots of things like how the questions are worded, which don't factor in to the margin of error figure.
And please remember, that the margin of error doesn't refer to the poll's accuracy. the margin of error only tracks the relation of the sample to the larger voting population - the degree to which the sample might represent the voting public. So a poll with .5% margin of error can still be -and often is - catastrophically wrong. The validity of a poll depends on lots of things like how the questions are worded, which don't factor in to the margin of error figure.
There are many, many ways to lie with statistics.
One that the WP uses routinely is to magnify the scale (y-axis) of the Bush-Kerry polls over time graph, so that the fluctuations look much greater than they are, and the random reader will have the impression e.g. that Bush is WAY ahead.
I know that the graph would be unreadable otherwise, but i don't think that it gives a fair impression.
Confidence intervals for percentages are a snap to calculate: a 95% confidence interval is the square root of (pq/n) times 1.97, where p is the proportion in favor of a candadate, q is 1-p, and n is the number of cases. So if 47% favor Bush in a sample of 900 people, 95% of the time the true result would fall within +/- 3.2774 percent of 47%, or anywhere from 43.7 to 50.3 percent. In Excel, use the formula =sqrt((.47*.53)/900)*1.97, and out pops .032774.
Confidence intervals for percentages are a snap to calculate: a 95% confidence interval is the square root of (pq/n) times 1.97, where p is the proportion in favor of a candadate, q is 1-p, and n is the number of cases. So if 47% favor Bush in a sample of 900 people, 95% of the time the true result would fall within +/- 3.2774 percent of 47%, or anywhere from 43.7 to 50.3 percent. In Excel, use the formula =sqrt((.47*.53)/900)*1.97, and out pops .032774.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
