Big Blue Wave's Comments
SUZANNE writes:
"Over 157 000 households were contacted. There were 13 000 respndents. They were weighted for geographic density-- in other words, they were from all over the country.
The automated dialer phoned these households and asked whether abortionist Henry Morgentaler should received the Order of Canada. They pressed "1" for "yes" and "2" for no.
Over 55% responded "no". In some provinces, the opposition was about 2/3 of the population."
How do you know all of the above? Seriously, how do you know, beyond any doubt, that all of the above is exactly what happened?
Please try to answer that question without resorting to, "Because they said so."
I'm waiting ...
A phone spam company. How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in?
No, JJ, let's not even go there. I'm asking a much simpler question. In previous posts, SUZANNE has been howling about having the "facts" and so on. Therefore, I simply want SUZANNE to explain how she knows that there was such a poll that produced exactly those results.
It's a simple question, and it deserves a simple answer. And that answer cannot be, "Because KLR Vu Research says so."
Sorry CC, that was meant for SUZANNE.
But you're right. This situation demands some evidence other than "According to KlrVu Polling..."
And when she's done answering that, I have some more questions on methodology.
*crickets*
The wording of the poll is a Push Poll.
Next autodialer Phone SPAMMING is not consider a scientific method for polling.
The poll is pure bs, it might be good for feeding the plants.
oh then we can start addressing the whole Pro-Life connection nd CPC pro-life connection, the fact the KRL Vu has never done a poll before in their life, the very rescent last sunday) registration of their web site, their plagerizing of another US Phone SPAMMER company for their web material.
No credibilty, no history, questionable methods, questionable results.
We done here? Yup, we're done.
The Poll is b+ll sh;+
"The wording of the poll is a Push Poll."
How is it a push poll? It's a pretty straightforward question.
You can make any question into "push polling" if that's your line.
"Next autodialer Phone SPAMMING is not consider a scientific method for polling."
It's not spamming. No more than a live person phoning up a household. I've done live-person "phone spamming". It's no different than with an autodialer. Big firms do it, too. I know from experience.
"No credibilty, no history, questionable methods, questionable results."
Questionable methods? You haven't critiqued the method. Calling an autodialler "phone spam" is not a critique.
Seriously, this critique of this poll is sad.
Big firms do it, too. I know from experience.
SUZANNE, legitimate polling firms do NOT do it.
"How is it a push poll?"
Please. Using the word "Abortionist" instead of "Doctor" makes it a push poll.
Most people know him as Dr. Henry Morgentaler, not Abortionist Henry Morgentaler. Leading, biased question to skew response = push poll.
"It's no different than with an autodialer."
Yes it is.
"Big firms do it, too."
No they don't.
"You haven't critiqued the method."
Have you even read what Buckets posted? Once it was established that this extremely questionable method was used, that's your critique, right there.
CLC made a big mistake choosing this "pollster" in order to deliver some numbers that would justify their existence, and it's coming back to bite them.
Also, what about CC's question: how do you know that anything in that press release actually happened? What proof do you have? Other than "lifesite said so".
I have worked at Statistics Canada. No one who knows anything about surveys would believe anything about this piece of garbage. The methodology is so amateurish you could find out almost anything you wanted. The kind of post-stratification (that's a technical term) they did is what introductory students are taught to never do. In any case, it looks to me as if they just kept on annoying people until they got the results they wanted. The response rate (less than 8%) is so low that a professional survey organisation (such as Ipsos-Reid or Ekos) would never have let the results out. That's what talking about the poll itself means. It's a piece of crap that wouldn't be given a passing grade in an introductory research methods course.
"SUZANNE, legitimate polling firms do NOT do it."
They do. I know because I did it and I was working for a well-known polling firm.
"Have you even read what Buckets posted? Once it was established that this extremely questionable method was used, that's your critique, right there."
I may or may not have read it. But so far what I've read has not been substantial.
"Also, what about CC's question: how do you know that anything in that press release actually happened?"
How do you know that any survey done by any company is any good? Seriously. How do you know they're not giving what their clients want?
". The response rate (less than 8%) is so low that a professional survey organisation (such as Ipsos-Reid or Ekos) would never have let the results out."
I've worked for polling firms and the response rate is typical as far as my experience is concerned. On a shift, you call 150-300 numbers, you get maybe 5-15 surveys. So sorry, but your statement does not jive with my experience whatsoever. I've actually worked for polling firms. Yes, professional organisations do put out those polls.
To the sane people: we should stop. This is not going anywhere.
SUZY, good luck living in a staunchly pro-choice country. I hope it doesn't drive you any crazier.
"How do you know that any survey done by any company is any good?"
Now you're catching on. That's why those of us who use stats to rationalize spending millions of client $$ make sure we know as much as possible about the polling company, the poll's methodology, the questions asked, when people were called, etc., to ascertain how valid the results really are.
Even with a proven pollster like Ipsos, I'd still want to know all the details of the poll, but at least I know the company itself is solid. But in the case of this "massive poll", the company is an unknown quantity (and looking worse by the minute). Add to that the faulty methodology and, well, I wouldn't use it to justify any spending rationale that I was writing, that's for sure.
So where are the details of how this poll was conducted -- the phone records, all the stuff that proves when this all took place? Or are you guys trusting a fly by night company to tell you the truth just because you like the results?
Suzanne
This company seems far from reputable for many reasons.
Adding them up really prejudices the outcome. I know from visiting your site that you would love the outcome to be a real solid one, but that is not the case.
Formatting the question and methodology are so important in canvassing, and this was illustrated quite clearly in the Rove inspired question about a candidate fathering a child with a woman of a different race.
This group are amateurs playing in a complex arena and they messed up.
I'd admit that and drop it if I were you.
Hand over the same poll to any large polling firm, apply the same methodology, and 19 times out of 20, the poll will get results within the 1.5% margin of error.
You speak of that 1.5% margin of error like it's gospel, but a simple check of the math reveals that the sample size warrants a much lower margin of error (no higher than 0.8%). If this firm's methods are to be believed, why are they unable to get even this simple detail right? Why should we believe a polling company that can't even calculate its own margin of error correctly?
SUZANNE, I'm just wondering... how did CLC get hooked up with Klrvu in the first place? With no web presence, no phone number in the book, and no listing anywhere at all, it must not have been an easy company to find.
Who brought them together to create statistical mayhem?
Suzanne, I'm sorry: this is not a reputable polling company. It's an operation that was set up quickly and has an axe to grind. Any statistician will tell you that this makes the poll results highly suspect. And the fact that 144,000 who were contacted chose not to respond one way or the other should have more of an impact on that 55% assessment that's been trumpeted about, again by those with axes to grind.
It's at best sloppy polling, and it's sad to see pro-lifers clinging to this dishonest attempt at propaganda.
Suzie: A few years back, CBC did a program called "Ask a Silly Question". They showed how a group (say CLC) would decide on a result (say 56%) and would ask a question to get that result. This is not a legitimite poll. Neither is an auto-dial poll. Unless the question is neutral, say "Would you vote for Stephen Harper" and not "Would you even think of voting for control freak Stephen Harper?" it is not a real poll. Can you now see that the question asked by an auto-dial poll is not real?
SUZANNE:
Let me remind you that it was you who has been demeaning and dismissing anyone who has questioned that legitimacy of that poll, even going so far as to write in this very blog post:
"So yes, I will continue to press on the real issue and continue to remind readers that the poll is sound, they just don't like it."
You have claimed, unconditionally and unequivocally, that that poll is "sound," at which point I have challenged you to provide your reasoning for that claim. And you've refused, and changed the subject, and moved the goalposts.
I win. Conversation over.
maybe god told her it's sound, cc....
KEvron
SUZANNE - Haven't you wondered why you're the only Socon blogger who's still defending this thing?
Everyone else seems to be pointing at bright shiny objects in the other direction...
Maybe they realize what's happened here and would rather that this embarrassment just got flushed?
NOTE: I fully expect a bunch of them to rush to the defense of this poll now, but that kind of doesn't count, know what I mean?
Do yourself a favour, admit CLC screwed up, this thing was garbagio and walk away from it.
Is this still being defended?
Seriously?
I'd like to find it amusing, but it's actually kind of sad.
BTW, I just sent the URL for klrvu to the original site owner and copyright holder, along with registering it at a couple of plagiarism sites - I know how irritating it is when I find out one of our sites has been ripped off, so I figure, someone there should know that they've been blatantly screwed over by these nutters. It can seriously affect the original site's search engine placement when the indexes spot it as a mirror of other content on the web.
By the way, SUZANNE, there's some real irony in you accusing others of "illiteracy." One need only peruse the current web site of KLR Vu to see real, appalling illiteracy and incompetence -- the kind of illiteracy and incompetence that could only come from complete frauds:
* "Partcipate" and "partcipating"
* incorrect punctuation, like the string "Morgentaler's" being broken over two lines on the main page
* "wieghted"
* the unnecessary and hideously inappropriate capitalization in "All Canadian Households"
* the hilariously colloquial (and unprofessional) "WHY Partcipate in a poll or survey anyways?" "anyways"?? Who the &#*^%(* uses the word "anyways" on a professional, corporate web page? Total frauds, that's who.)
... and the list goes on and on. Anyone who took polling seriously would take one look at that web page and wet themselves with laughter, then write those buffoons off as, well, buffoons.
That site isn't up to the level of what you could get from mediocre junior high school students. It's a farce, and those people are frauds. But feel free to keep living in your delusion. It suits you.
Cessy, I'll race you to the end of the Cesspool...on your mark..set...GO!...I win I win I win...jr. high?...indeed.
lol!
maybe godron told her it's soundron, ccron...ron
lol!
Dear Suzanne,
The only piece of valid statical data from this poll is that 92% of household hang up on autodialer/phone spammers.
And even that number I would call into question given this companies reputation.
Face, it is a bs poll, commissioned by a bias organization, preformed by an equally biased company, that used a biased question, that used non-scientific polling methods.
Bull sh*t from the beginning, right to the end.
Maybe you should just admit your mistake, publicly, save what little credibility you have left.
@ Zorpheous: umm. credibility?
Gosh your charitable.
Hey! Campbell's here...who the hell is lifeguarding the Cesspool?
"I'll race you to the end of the Cesspool"
an offer only a wingnut would make....
DOuglas FRiesen
Hey, Mahmood ... any interest in joining the discussion and addressing the actual issues? No? I thought not. Thanks for dropping by, though.
By the way, SUZANNE, I'm still waiting for the answer to my original question -- how do you know beyond any doubt that this poll occurred and that it happened exactly the way it's being described?
You have, on numerous occasions, made it clear you have absolutely no doubt about this alleged poll, and its legitimacy, and its soundness, etc, etc. I'm simply asking you how you justify that confidence. And, so far, you haven't answered. And I'm going to keep asking that question until I get an answer.
P.S. And free free to answer without posting any more pics of abortion porn. Think you can do that?
Cessy, who isn't sjwalter, who isn't dfriesen, who isn't much of anything really, would like Big Blue Wave to stop posting pics...is this the Big Blue Wave site or the Cesspool?...(sniffs air)...no putrid stench...(looks around)...no douchebags laying about...ummm Cessy, are you a nazi?
lol!
wingnutron
I've never worked for a polling company, but I was phone-polled sometime in the past year or two. I could tell it was a legitimate poll, because the questions (re Quebec politics) were asked in a very non-partisan manner, by a competent, courteous but completely neutral and real human being.
One thing I appreciated about the poll was that when I answered the phone, there was no delay before a real person came on the line (I always hang up when that typical delay occurs), so I was encouraged to take the time to answer the questions, which were so boring and straightforward I can't even remember what they were, though they were about an upcoming election.
Suzanne, I'm sure you've worked for a legitimate polling company, if you say so, but I have a hard time believing it was a neutral, competent or professional one, from what you describe.
Still waiting for the answer to my question, SUZANNE. Dum de dum dum ...
...while waiting, maybe try holding your breath until you turn blue...dumb de dumb dumb.
It's pretty bad when even your allies think the MASSIVE POLL is a massive scam.
John Counsell, CFRA 580, talking about the Massive Poll --
"Why even do a poll and publish the stats if the polling company is questionable? It does more damage than good. And [I am] a supporter of campaign Life Coalition!"
and
"Campaign Life Coalition has to do some damage control in telling people who KLRVU is, what other polls they've done in the past. … The stats mean nothing if this is not a legitimate polling company."
He also opined that CLC and KLRvu are taking a beating, getting creamed, taking a hit, looking like fools, etc. etc. over this.
What to do? Admit it was all a mistake, the poll has no validity, and try again with a real pollster? Or place hands firmly over ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA"?
Still waiting, SUZANNE. Surely it can't be taking you this long to invent another delusion, can it?
Well if we're waiting on stuff we may as well wait for Cessy's "Wanda Watkins" apology...or are we deluding ourselves...I'm thinking "deluding"...but we wait.
Um ... talking about abortion polls here, mahmood ... try to focus.
Pay attention Cessy, I said "while we're waiting" may as well wait for your apology, makes sense, no?...now back to that apology, you know it's the right thing to do so do it...I could care less if you post it on the intertoobz but you should put pen to paper and apologize to the Watkins family for that deranged/insane/hateful rant that spewed from your stupid inkstained head...it's the right thing to do Cessy and Jack Layton will be so proud of you, no really he will.
Yoo hoo, SUZAAAAAANNE... Are you consulting with CLC before you decide what to say/do on this?
Ignoring it won't make it go away. It isn't going anywhere until CLC either (a) proves, via backup data, that the polling company & its product are legit, or (b) issues a public mea culpa and admits the poll is junk.
The truth shall set you free.
I'm wondering how much dough CLC blew on this? I mean, they're strapped for cash, aren't they?
It's gone real quiet around these parts...
fern hill -- In one of the clips from Counsell's show, the CLC representative says they chose Klrvu because it was cheap
Good way to get a credible poll, make sure you choose a pollster who's cheap.
The real question is how did they choose klrvu in the first place when it isn't even listed in any business directories, had no web presence (until after the poll's release, and even that only happened under duress), no phone number, and was unknown even to other people working in the polling biz in Winnipeg?
How?
I imagine that even as I type this, they're busy busy busy cobbling together some kind of justification for all this, and maybe something that can pass as backup data.
Can't wait
Commenting by HaloScan
