Jump to content

Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content Count

    52,634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. No, it's not guessing, and you are displaying your ignorance on this topic with each post. Go read Asher's book about how polling firms draw their samples for a primer and then we can discuss this. You keep asking "what region" and "what age group" and "what financial bracket" and "what race" and "what party choice". It's RANDOM SAMPLING, meaning that you will get responses from ALL regions, races, parties, and age groups relative to their actual size of the population. If women are 52% of the population, then a random sample will have approximately 52% of women in it. That's why it's RA
  2. If you're talking about getting a better estimate of the population, you're exactly right about aggregating the polls. Looking at change over time, however, is a little trickier because the change can be heavily affected by whichever poll is most recent. Rasmussen polls always show much lower approval ratings for Obama, so if the latest poll is Rasmussen then the average will drop just because of which poll was taken last. That's why it's best to look at the pattern over time for the same polling firm, and do so across all of the polls (e.g., change in Rasmussen, change in CNN, change in FO
  3. Actually, I posted that other thread after poking around the website 2tears posted. There are myriad reasons why polls differ. Differences can be question wording and the order in which questions are asked or the specific polling techniques and weights used to bring the sample in line with known popular parameters (e.g., the census). However, I am not comparing results ACROSS polling firms. I am comparing results WITHIN the same polling firm over time. That means any differences due to extraneous factors are controlled. You have the same exact question asked two different times. You h
  4. Hence the caveats at the beginning. But the sample size is large enough to get an accurate estimate of the population (within 3% margin of error). Put differently, there's greater than a 97% chance that public opinion has changed in a positive direction for Obama and the Democrats. If you take the other poll that's been done that also shows a positive trend, then there is a 3% chance for each poll that there has been no change (e.g., probability = .03). To calculate the joint probability of two events happening--both polls showing a positive trend when there really is none--you multiply t
  5. Again, you can question the validity all you like. It only makes you look uninformed and partisan, rejecting credible evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. Take an elementary statistics course and learn about the science and math behind random sampling. Or you could read a primer on polling techniques. Herb Asher's "Polling and the Public" is a very good, non-technical place to start.
  6. Please, this isn't helping your argument. Mathematically, there is a very good reason why professional pollsters stop polling at around 1,000 people. It's because that is when the point of diminishing returns makes the gain in accuracy too costly in terms of the price of the poll. You get a 1% increase in accuracy going from 300 to 600 people. Another 1% going from 600 to 1200. Another 1% going from 1200 to 2500. Another 1% going from 2500 to over 5000. I can spell out the mathematical formula for calculating the standard error and the margin of error if you like, or you can take my wor
  7. All appropriate caveats apply: this is one poll (though others are starting to show a bump, as well) and it's VERY preliminary. We need to wait until two or three more polls are released to see if they show similar jumps in public approval of health care reform, but the early signs are positive for Obama and Dems: http://pollingreport.com/health.htm Check out the CBS poll (second one on the list as of now): Approval of how Obama's handling health care: 3/18: 41% 3/22: 47% Support for health care reform package signed by Congress (strongly approve and approve) 3/18: 37% 3/22: 42% And this, I t
  8. Ugh, please don't make the same mistake that so many others make when they dismiss polls because they don't like the results. It's a valid poll. The majority of people DO think we're heading in the wrong direction. The poll doesn't say WHY a majority feel that way, but a sample of 1,000 is only 1% more accurate than a sample of 2,500 people, and that is only less than 1% more accurate than a sample of 5,000 people. Even if you sampled 100,000 people at random, that poll would only be about 3% more accurate than the one of 1,000 people.
  9. Simpletons tend to over-simplify things to fit their misinformed worldviews.
  10. Lame: The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism at the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., Richmond, Virginia. A first floor window was struck by a bullet at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Congressman Eric Cantor, was unoccupied at the time. A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with en
  11. I'm glad you posted this because it changes the implication of the coffin. It's still stupid and childish, but at least it wasn't a death threat.
  12. Republicans used reconciliation (the "procedural gimmickery" you're referring to) twice as often as Democrats. Democrats never responded by canceling all legislative business after 2PM nor offering thousands of unrelated amendments nor the other crybaby tactics that Republicans are employing. Not that Democrats are pure nor have they not employed procedural tricks in the past when they didn't get their way. But they didn't filibuster over ONE HUNDRED regular bills every year nor did they engage in these kinds of games intended to completely shut down the Senat.e Here's the simple fact: De
  13. You're again showing your ignorance about the timeline involved. Those links are from 2010. Democrats delayed passage in the Senate for four months during the period from mid-June to late September/early October. First of all, while the ranking Republicans have a seat in the meetings, there was nothing that required Democratic ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee from having separate private talks with them to negotiate a bill. Specifically, the "gang of six", which included three Dems and three Reps (Grassley, Enzi, and Snowe) met privately to negotiate a bipartisan agreement.
  14. What procedure did the Democrats use that was so out of bounds? Reconciliation? Used to pass several major pieces of legislation like Bush's tax cuts and health care reform in the 80s. Deem and pass? It was used to pass the line-item veto and other major pieces of legislation. What did the Democrats do, specifically, that justifies or is equivalent to the games Republicans are playing now.
  15. Your point is well-taken, but a lot of the threats are indeed coming from people expressing a pro-life point of view. You can listen to several of the phone calls to Stupack's office. It's pretty obvious which side of the debate they're on.
  16. That's exactly the point I was trying to make earlier, but you made it much more clearly and concisely. Well said! I had completely left out the role of the TV talk shows and talk radio. The latest from Beck is that the "second American Revolution is being played out right now". Here's an audio clip of him making some pretty disturbing comments about "throwing bombs through a building" and "overthrowing government". The clip ends pretty abruptly and it's from Media Matters, so it's likely that there is a larger context not being considered. IOW, take the implication with a grain of salt.
  17. I understand your point and I think that would be a good first step. However, I disagree with you about the organization itself. The people who show up at the rallies are mostly decent law-abiding people. Horribly misled, but who are sincere and not associated with the kooks. The problem is not that a few kooks show up to these events and spoil the lot. My concern is that a lot of the kooks are the organizers and leaders of the organization itself. The organization is the problem, not the majority of people they've recruited to protest. That's why I don't think these are just isolated i
  18. Is she going to feed the Donger? Otherwise, you just yanky my wanky. True story.
  19. All I have to say to that is: "No mo yanky my wanky. The Donger need FOOD!"
  20. I have a very simple question here, and I pray to God that I'm just overreacting to the situation: How will all of you respond when a prominent Democrat gets killed by some unstable individual who takes the idiotic rhetoric about "revolution" and "RELOAD" seriously? Will you pretend that you are shocked by it? Will you feign indignation over the inevitable consequence of "revolutionary" language? Or will you take responsibility for the situation you have created with idiotic revolutionary rhetoric? Since I seriously doubt the latter, I wonder whose children have to die at the hands of gulli
  21. I think you're underestimating Boehner's role as leader of the House GOP. His members are literally clapping and cheering for people who disrupt Congress in the balcony. His members are using inflammatory and "revolutionary" language on the floor of the House like Devin Nunes: On the floor of the House, Rep. Amol Rajan said "say no to totalitarianism!" So either Boehner approves of this "revolutionary" language or he's a weak leader who can't control his caucus. Take your pick, but either he is condoning the idiocy that's been occurring on the Floor of the House and the Senate or he doesn
×
×
  • Create New...