|
|
#61
08-23-2007, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The more individualistic the candidate's supporters, the less accurate the polling. Polls concerning standard elections are going to be pretty accurate because both parties' supporters aren't amazingly individualistic. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have any data to support this assertion? If this trend existed, it doesn't seem like it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate by comparing past election results of "individualistic" candidates to their poll numbers. [/ QUOTE ] I think iron or someone posted a link to a study that said pollsters have found no significant difference between those they are unable to contact compared to those that they are able to. And even if there were, once they understand the nature of those they are unable to contact, they can adjust the data. Statistics just looks like voodoo, but surprisingly, it works 95% of the time. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] 
|
|
#62
08-23-2007, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The more individualistic the candidate's supporters, the less accurate the polling. Polls concerning standard elections are going to be pretty accurate because both parties' supporters aren't amazingly individualistic. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have any data to support this assertion? If this trend existed, it doesn't seem like it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate by comparing past election results of "individualistic" candidates to their poll numbers. [/ QUOTE ] I think iron or someone posted a link to a study that said pollsters have found no significant difference between those they are unable to contact compared to those that they are able to. And even if there were, once they understand the nature of those they are unable to contact, they can adjust the data. [/ QUOTE ] No, no, AlexM and AWoodside are right, polling is a billion dollar industry that just produces completely random, biased, unreliable and untrustworthy data. In fact, professional pollsters hadn't even heard of people without landlines nor considered how to account for people who hang up on them until various Ron Paul supporters on 2p2 pointed out it might throw a wrench in their data. So keep spreading the word about all these problems in polling, Ron Paul supporters, we'll get through to those stubborn, Philistine pollsters someday. You'd think guys who get paid hundreds of thousands (or in some firm's cases, millions) of dollars and practice this professionally would consider this stuff, but apparently we'll need to light the way for them. Anyway, most of the standard "polling isn't capturing Paul's true level of support" arguments are addressed in the links I posted in this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10881683
|
|
#63
08-23-2007, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The more individualistic the candidate's supporters, the less accurate the polling. Polls concerning standard elections are going to be pretty accurate because both parties' supporters aren't amazingly individualistic. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have any data to support this assertion? If this trend existed, it doesn't seem like it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate by comparing past election results of "individualistic" candidates to their poll numbers. [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't have any data to support this any more than I have data to support there not being any planets in the galaxy not made out of cotton candy. It's just amazingly obvious.
|
|
#64
08-23-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The more individualistic the candidate's supporters, the less accurate the polling. Polls concerning standard elections are going to be pretty accurate because both parties' supporters aren't amazingly individualistic. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have any data to support this assertion? If this trend existed, it doesn't seem like it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate by comparing past election results of "individualistic" candidates to their poll numbers. [/ QUOTE ] I think iron or someone posted a link to a study that said pollsters have found no significant difference between those they are unable to contact compared to those that they are able to. And even if there were, once they understand the nature of those they are unable to contact, they can adjust the data. Statistics just looks like voodoo, but surprisingly, it works 95% of the time. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] If they can't contact them, how is it possible for them to measure this?
|
|
#65
08-23-2007, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The more individualistic the candidate's supporters, the less accurate the polling. Polls concerning standard elections are going to be pretty accurate because both parties' supporters aren't amazingly individualistic. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have any data to support this assertion? If this trend existed, it doesn't seem like it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate by comparing past election results of "individualistic" candidates to their poll numbers. [/ QUOTE ] I think iron or someone posted a link to a study that said pollsters have found no significant difference between those they are unable to contact compared to those that they are able to. And even if there were, once they understand the nature of those they are unable to contact, they can adjust the data. [/ QUOTE ] No, no, AlexM and AWoodside are right, polling is a billion dollar industry that just produces completely random, biased, unreliable and untrustworthy data. In fact, professional pollsters hadn't even heard of people without landlines nor considered how to account for people who hang up on them until various Ron Paul supporters on 2p2 pointed out it might throw a wrench in their data. So keep spreading the word about all these problems in polling, Ron Paul supporters, we'll get through to those stubborn, Philistine pollsters someday. You'd think guys who get paid hundreds of thousands (or in some firm's cases, millions) of dollars and practice this professionally would consider this stuff, but apparently we'll need to light the way for them. Anyway, most of the standard "polling isn't capturing Paul's true level of support" arguments are addressed in the links I posted in this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10881683 [/ QUOTE ] Hello, Mr. Strawman. They can be paid trillions of dollars. Unless they use force, it's impossible for them to account for those who refuse to participate.
|
|
#66
08-23-2007, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
Hello, Mr. Strawman. They can be paid trillions of dollars. Unless they use force, it's impossible for them to account for those who refuse to participate. [/ QUOTE ] You mean refuse to participate in polling, or refuse to participate in voting? Obviously, pollsters want to exclude those who don't vote. If you are just talking about people who vote but don't answer polls (or don't receive poll solicitations), you should be easily able to measure the impact by comparing past polls to actual election results.
|
|
#67
08-23-2007, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hello, Mr. Strawman. They can be paid trillions of dollars. Unless they use force, it's impossible for them to account for those who refuse to participate. [/ QUOTE ] You mean refuse to participate in polling, or refuse to participate in voting? Obviously, pollsters want to exclude those who don't vote. If you are just talking about people who vote but don't answer polls (or don't receive poll solicitations), you should be easily able to measure the impact by comparing past polls to actual election results. [/ QUOTE ] Voting but not polling. Your solution might work for something as simple as "Democrat vs Republican," but it doesn't work for unusual situations like Ron Paul.
|
|
#68
08-23-2007, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hello, Mr. Strawman. They can be paid trillions of dollars. Unless they use force, it's impossible for them to account for those who refuse to participate. [/ QUOTE ] You mean refuse to participate in polling, or refuse to participate in voting? Obviously, pollsters want to exclude those who don't vote. If you are just talking about people who vote but don't answer polls (or don't receive poll solicitations), you should be easily able to measure the impact by comparing past polls to actual election results. [/ QUOTE ] Voting but not polling. Your solution might work for something as simple as "Democrat vs Republican," but it doesn't work for unusual situations like Ron Paul. [/ QUOTE ] Do you really think that Ron Paul is that unusual??? A) He is running as a Republican; B) Even if he were running as a third-party candidate, pollsters have dealt with third party candidates in the past as well. What makes Ron Paul so special that you think makes him an anomoly in this regard?
|
|
#69
08-24-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hello, Mr. Strawman. They can be paid trillions of dollars. Unless they use force, it's impossible for them to account for those who refuse to participate. [/ QUOTE ] You mean refuse to participate in polling, or refuse to participate in voting? Obviously, pollsters want to exclude those who don't vote. If you are just talking about people who vote but don't answer polls (or don't receive poll solicitations), you should be easily able to measure the impact by comparing past polls to actual election results. [/ QUOTE ] Voting but not polling. Your solution might work for something as simple as "Democrat vs Republican," but it doesn't work for unusual situations like Ron Paul. [/ QUOTE ] Ahh, youth. Too young to remember all those other unusual situations like George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot, etc. Yes, history did indeed begin the day you were born.
|
|
#70
08-25-2007, 06:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ...but is it really that vile to be pro individual liberty and responsibility? [/ QUOTE ] Except he's not. He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes. If you really look at him closely, he's an anti-federalist, not a libertarian. A libertarian should be opposed to excess government at all levels, not just the federal one. I don't hate him, mostly, I don't think about him. He's a non-factor, except on this forum. [/ QUOTE ] Being pro life is entirely consistent with being libertarian for people who view a fetus as a human being. [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
