Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

(JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
David Kerber wrote:

In article ,
says...

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

That's right.

I don't think so.

I do... and so do these guys...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre...chart3way.html

There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
nothing but the fallibility of polls.

You're confusing exit polls and pre-election polls. The pre-election
polls are subject to errors in assumptions (whether someone will
actually vote, what percentages of people represented by the sample
are actually present in the sampled population, etc.); the exit polls
are polls of people leaving the polling place, so they are not subject
to nearly the uncertainty.

They're subject to a very significant amount of uncertainty. As
pointed out previously, the tendency for Republicans to participate in
exit polls is considerably less than Democrats. Also, the firm doing
the poll insists that the early hour polls showing Kerry ahead weren't
representative of the final polls, and should NOT have been released
as they were (by themselves) meaningless.

Two pre-election polls can correctly
measure their populations within a 3% MOE but give very different
predictions because in reality they are measuring very different
populations.

They measure the same populations, actually. Either ~1,000 likely
voters or ~1,000 registered voters.

The problem is not with the polls, it is with the
pollsters assuming that they are measuring something that they are
not. Exit polls are not subject to pollsters' errors to such a great
degree.

It does eliminate the portion of the population that doesn't vote -
but is hardly fool-proof.

"Fallibility of polls" has got to be one of the stupedest things I've
ever heard, but for people who don't have any desire for reality-based
analysis, I'm sure it works.

Duh. Check this assembly of poll statistics for Arizona done at about
the same time:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre.../az_polls.html

Do you really think the voters were wavering by +- 10%, or do you
suppose that it's just possible that the polls are indeed fallible. I
think history has proven it.

Me, I'd like to see someone explain how Bush conveniently beat worse
than 1000-one odds in both Ohio and Florida to win "re-election", even
as Karen Hughes was telling him he had lost.

He didn't beat 1000 to 1 odds - check out the pre-election polls in
the states and try (as much as Michael Moore will suggest you don't)
to ignore the fact that you're operating under a partial, and flawed
assumption.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre.../fl_polls.html FL,
Bush +0.6%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre.../oh_polls.html OH,
Bush +2.1%

Both represent the average of the last polling done in both states
before the election. Funny that the actual results look pretty much
the same, huh? Must have been a Karl Rove conspiracy. Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

What difference does that make?

If you DON'T know what difference it makes then please go down to your local
Starbucks and tell Bush jokes over your non-fat decaf latte. You haven't a
clue what the world is like.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

What difference does that make?

If you DON'T know what difference it makes then please go down to your local
Starbucks and tell Bush jokes over your non-fat decaf latte. You haven't a
clue what the world is like.

Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

What difference does that make?


If you DON'T know what difference it makes then please go down to your local
Starbucks and tell Bush jokes over your non-fat decaf latte. You haven't a
clue what the world is like.

Yes, it makes so much sense that voter participation will drop
dramatically solely due to a country's population exceeding 100 million.

I suppose this effect is due to wearing helmets while cycling instead of
wearing helmets while operating motor vehicles.

P.S. There are no Starbucks near where I live. World coffee domination
is not yet complete.

--
Tom Sherman

Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

What difference does that make?


If you DON'T know what difference it makes then please go down to your local
Starbucks and tell Bush jokes over your non-fat decaf latte. You haven't a
clue what the world is like.

Yes, it makes so much sense that voter participation will drop
dramatically solely due to a country's population exceeding 100 million.

I suppose this effect is due to wearing helmets while cycling instead of
wearing helmets while operating motor vehicles.

P.S. There are no Starbucks near where I live. World coffee domination
is not yet complete.

--
Tom Sherman

A Muzi wrote:
wrote:
You blithering idiots! You re-elected that imbecile George Bush as your
President.
He’s a complete moron and so are most of you!

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
No I didn't.
He is, but no we aren't.
Most of us DIDN'T vote for him.
Unfortunately, more of us voted for him than the next guy,
and the rest of us decided not to vote for anyone.
The result is, he's still President.

Well, I did. And I wrote RNC two checks this summer.

And you'll be getting the bill for it when you turn 65.

The pervasive view of this sharp and motivated man of action
as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' works very much to his favor.
Thanks for underestimating him. That alone was good for
several basis points - just enough, actually.

People who considered intelligence an important issue
voted 85:15 for Kerry.

If you think that the intelligence issue worked in Bush's
favor, you ignored all the other issues.

--Blair
"Keep voting like a sheep.
You're making mutton cheaper."

A Muzi wrote:
wrote:
You blithering idiots! You re-elected that imbecile George Bush as your
President.
He’s a complete moron and so are most of you!

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
No I didn't.
He is, but no we aren't.
Most of us DIDN'T vote for him.
Unfortunately, more of us voted for him than the next guy,
and the rest of us decided not to vote for anyone.
The result is, he's still President.

Well, I did. And I wrote RNC two checks this summer.

And you'll be getting the bill for it when you turn 65.

The pervasive view of this sharp and motivated man of action
as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' works very much to his favor.
Thanks for underestimating him. That alone was good for
several basis points - just enough, actually.

People who considered intelligence an important issue
voted 85:15 for Kerry.

If you think that the intelligence issue worked in Bush's
favor, you ignored all the other issues.

--Blair
"Keep voting like a sheep.
You're making mutton cheaper."

Pete wrote:

"Chalo" wrote
I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

This is one of the reasons Kerry lost.

It is none of the reasons Kerry lost, but lies like yours is one.

--Blair
"We live in a nation of mendacity."

Pete wrote:

"Chalo" wrote
I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

This is one of the reasons Kerry lost.

It is none of the reasons Kerry lost, but lies like yours is one.

--Blair
"We live in a nation of mendacity."

In article ,
Blair P. Houghton wrote:

A Muzi wrote:

The pervasive view of this sharp and motivated man of action
as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' works very much to his favor.
Thanks for underestimating him. That alone was good for
several basis points - just enough, actually.

People who considered intelligence an important issue
voted 85:15 for Kerry.

If you think that the intelligence issue worked in Bush's
favor, you ignored all the other issues.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...t&articleId=83
43

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?