You can call me a right-wing wingnut or whatever. But this makes sense to me, and this does not. And it's been pretty consistent during the current election season.
Washington Post is biased pro-Obama, WSJ is biased pro-McCain, and the voters are already subscribed to whichever newspaper reflects their own bias anyway. I'm sorry, but the media bias is basically a republican excuse for being disliked by the majority of the population.
Really? Which polls? Even Fox News, which no one could accuse of being anti-republican, gives pre-election poll results which show Obama leading by 7%.
More or less respectable polling organizations show the unstable picture, with both candidates below 50% and the gap oscillating withing the margin of error. So the the idea about majority of population disliking Republicans can be explained only as a severe distortion of the reality. BTW, I expect Obama to win the elections.
Well, 6 points gap is quite close to the margin of error and during the campaign we have already seen similar oscillations. So, while Obama will, perhaps, be the next President, the idea about anti-Republican majority remains wild exaggeration.
Sounds like you are can't provide links to these respectable polling organizations which show both candidates under 50% and, being unable to substantiate your claim, are switching positions from "both candidates are under 50%" to "6% is close to the margin of error".
I'm not going to even discuss your second claim until you admit your first one to have been wrong or substantiate it. When I start discussing it I'll ask you to prove it by showing the margin of error for the specific poll to which you have referred.
Sounds like you are can't provide links to these respectable polling organizations which show both candidates under 50% The link shows the polling chart ( I am seldom wrong 8-) ). Now, when you can see with your own eyes that for the most of campaign both candidates were below 50% and the gap was smaller than in the latest poll, we can talk about imaginary anti-Republican majority and the deep emotional reasons that make you distort the reality in a such an unexciting way.
This link shows Obama at 51.4%. You claimed that both candidates "are" (that's present tense, not "were for the most part of the campaign") under 50%. You may be seldom wrong, but this is one of these seldom occasions.
I didn't claim that today or yesterday Obama polled below 50%. What I said was that overall picture doesn't prove the еxistence of the anti-Republican majority. If it was not clear enough, I meant the whole campaign and not just the latest poll.
I'll take that to be the closest you can get to "I've used the wrong verb tense and failed to make my meaning explicit". Accepted. On to your next point:
"Polling as a measurement technique has an intrinsic margin of error, around 3-4%. " So, 6% would be anywhere from 30% to 50% outside the margin of error, right? If, of course, one forgot for the nonce that you can't actually discuss margin of error without first stating the level of confidence (which is usually either 95% or 90%, and which one is used makes a large difference). This sounds like another one of those unsubstantiated... oops, sorry... unclearly stated opinions of yours. Care to restate? Using polls that look at all candidates, not just the ones that remained standing at the end of the campaign, or, better yet, at parties?
And, btw, when you say "latest poll" do specify the poll if you want to say anything meaningful about its margin of error. And stay away from ad-hominem attepts if you want to get a response.
And, btw, when you say "latest poll" do specify the poll if you want to say anything meaningful about its margin of error Polling as a measurement technique has an intrinsic margin of error, around 3-4%.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
The polls and elections show slightly different numbers, but fact should never distract the true believer.
no subject
no subject
BTW, I expect Obama to win the elections.
no subject
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ Obama at 50% (those are _heavy_ Republicans, in case you were wondering)
http://zogby.com/ (Obama at 50.9%)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/pennsylvania/toplines_pennsylvania_presidential_election_november_1_2008 (Obama at 52%)
http://www.muhlenberg.edu/studorgs/polling/ (Obama at 52.2%)
no subject
no subject
I'm not going to even discuss your second claim until you admit your first one to have been wrong or substantiate it. When I start discussing it I'll ask you to prove it by showing the margin of error for the specific poll to which you have referred.
no subject
The link shows the polling chart ( I am seldom wrong 8-) ). Now, when you can see with your own eyes that for the most of campaign both candidates were below 50% and the gap was smaller than in the latest poll, we can talk about imaginary anti-Republican majority and the deep emotional reasons that make you distort the reality in a such an unexciting way.
no subject
no subject
no subject
"Polling as a measurement technique has an intrinsic margin of error, around 3-4%. "
So, 6% would be anywhere from 30% to 50% outside the margin of error, right? If, of course, one forgot for the nonce that you can't actually discuss margin of error without first stating the level of confidence (which is usually either 95% or 90%, and which one is used makes a large difference). This sounds like another one of those unsubstantiated... oops, sorry... unclearly stated opinions of yours. Care to restate? Using polls that look at all candidates, not just the ones that remained standing at the end of the campaign, or, better yet, at parties?
no subject
no subject
Polling as a measurement technique has an intrinsic margin of error, around 3-4%.
Ooops!
The 52% is correct.