Not a big deal, but clearly a bit too directed at the poster to stay in GD.
Here’s our dialogue in its entirety, originally scattered across posts 142-169 of the Handicapping the Pennsylvania primary thread:
Lib: I’ve been wondering what effect the surge in young voter registration might be having on the polls. I’d hazard to guess that a large percentage of new registrations falls in that group, and a lot of them don’t have land lines. It could be a surprisingly large number that don’t show up in the polls at all.
RT: RealClearPolitics has the pre-primary polls for all the primaries, and you can go directly to SurveyUSA’s website and get their poll breakdowns by age, sex, etc. And CNN has the exit polls on its site.
So if you’ve got a theory, this is one year for which there’s a ton of data to test it with.
Lib: Good idea, but what I was thinking about wouldn’t show up in that. There’s an awful lot of young people who have cell phones only — no land line — who might have (1) registered to vote, and (2) not been polled. They can’t use auto-dialers for cell phone polls, and so they almost always poll only land lines.
See this article from Pew:
RT: Why wouldn’t it show up? Young people with cell phones wouldn’t show up in pre-primary polls, but they’d show up in exit polls. If there’s a consistent discrepancy between one and the other, you ought to be able to find it.
Lib: I’m talking about Pennsylvania, as in the thread title. Has Pennsylvania had an exit poll already?
RT: So you’re asking whether cell-phone-using young people in Pennsylvania are exceptionally unlikely to show up in polls, compared to other states?
You’re right: that can’t be answered.
I’m just trying to understand why it makes sense as a question. Is there any reason under the sun to expect that that might be the case?
Lib: I’ve been wondering what effect the surge in young voter registration might be having on the polls. I’d hazard to guess that a large percentage of new registrations falls in that group, and a lot of them don’t have land lines. It could be a surprisingly large number that don’t show up in the polls at all.
RT: This has happened in many other states this primary season. It’s hardly unique to Pennsylvania.
Lib: Why didn’t you just say that the first time? (The posts are identical.) Anyway, I think Phlosphr answered it very well.
Why didn’t I say that the first time, indeed?
Because I didn’t realize initially that you were talking about Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania only?
Because you, of all people, don’t exactly have a track record of rigorously staying on topic?
Because I had no idea that even if you were talking about Pennsylvania only, you’d find evidence from other states that might shed light on Pennsylvania to be of no import?
Because I had no idea that you’d repeat your original query, just as some sort of silly ‘gotcha’?
Because even if I’d noticed that you had done so, the second iteration would have not meant the same as the first, due to the intervening discussion?
Because I had no idea you were trying to win some strange game you were playing, rather than genuinely seeking information?
Because you’re lucky anyone would try to help you in the future, who observed that the reward of trying to help Lib is to be the recipient of a bunch of snippiness and head games?
Yeah, we’ve got a history, but I didn’t have a problem with putting that aside for a bit, just to point you in the right direction if you wanted to figure something out.
My mistake. Sheesh.
