No, busy.
Good to see that some of you have learned about outlying data points, though.
That’s using actual votes, which is the best “polling data” of all. Except when it’s historical, and the premise of the argument *denigrating * the use of polling data is that this year is somehow different.
You haven’t checked yourself? :dubious: What p values does it have for which scenarios?
Sure. But one has to be far, far more careful about proclaiming that the reality is going to be the opposite of what that polling data says. Far more careful than certain posters here have been, to be sure.
I prefer not to have anybody with an agenda, even one they themselves might not be aware of, do any filtering of my information at all. You never get to find out what their underlying assumptions are, much less question them, if you refuse to ask.
The same George Will who’s responsible for the crap about China drilling for oil off the Cuban coast? Time for the Old Fools Home for him. He can have Pierre Salinger’s room.
Listen politely to his incoherent ramblings on Visiting Day if you must, but don’t take him seriously.
Elvis, honey, sweetie, we knew. You just weren’t listening.
We have a winnah! 
Oh - welcome back, Elvis! I’d say we missed you, except… 
“Listening” to what, all those gleeful Hillary’s-forked-now! posts every time a new outlying poll came out with Obama way ahead? Or are you saying you knew you were full of shit even then?
Maybe we can see if RTF understands the difference between data and process yet. How’s that coming, sport?
Oh, are you bringing up that post of mine where you completely misunderstood what I was referring to, then never responded after I cleared up your confusion?
That’s how it’s coming, sport.
You showed you had no fucking idea about the very basic concepts, and that there was no point in trying to explain it further. There still isn’t, obviously and disappointingly.
You do NOT want to hold that up for examination by anyone, trust me.
You know, it’s much easier to say, “I could beat your silly argument every which way if I wanted to,” than to actually do so.
But congratulations on being able to string the sentence together where you say you could do that. I’m proud of you, boy. :D:D:D:D:D
As I just said … :rolleyes:
There are many fine introductory statistics texts available in your local library. When you’ve bothered to open one, and become minimally qualified to discuss the meaning of polls or even data, do let us all know. If you’d rather just post more ignorance-based taunts instead, this is not the right forum.
More “you’re wrong, but the proof won’t fit into this space” nonsense. Keep it coming. 
Oh yeah: feel free to Pit me, if you think this dialogue belongs there.
It’s not that “the proof won’t fit in this space”, in fact it already exists in the thread you’re astoundingly holding up as a positive example of your “contributions” here. Rather, it’s that you lack the basic vocabulary to receive the explanations that I, and others, already provided you, even simplified and elementary as they were. There’s really no excuse, you know - the basics of statistics, and even many advanced concepts, can be picked up in a few hours by someone with the motivation and aptitude.
If you wish to remain *proud * of that flourish of ignorance nonetheless, you certainly have that right. It’s still not advisable, though.
(Time for another “Yeah, well, you just suck!” reply in RTF’s typical style …)
“We rebutted that point before your post, but I’m not even going to point to where.”
That’s another familiar dodge.
Like I said, keep 'em coming.
When it’s two in a row does your buzzer ring louder or start to ring true?
From the linked article
I’m not sure these numbers predict anything much yet.
Maybe not, but DSeid was rebutting my ‘outlier’ remarks. And you’ve got to admit, he’s got a point. (OK, I have to admit that. :))
I don’t know what to make of the polls, quite honestly. Through the period of the Newsweek and L.A. Times polls, the Rasmussen tracker has had Obama up by 3-7%, and Obama’s been up in the Gallup tracker by 2-3%. Fox and USA Today/Gallup, overlapping with Newsweek, had Obama up by 4 and 6 points, respectively.
It’s as if we have two alternate universes overlaid on one another, with two polls in one universe, and the others in the other universe.
I’m sure it’ll all shake out eventually, but it’s weird right now.
Two outliers maybe be better than one, but that doesn’t mean they’re a trend yet
I think the only thing the two polls mean is that liberal political junkies have some more things to talk about. If you want to know anything of value about how a campaign or candidate is doing you have to look at a lot more statistics than poll numbers, and read into how the local population is being county by county by state by state.
(I’ve been quoted by [bold]RTFirefly[/bold]! I feel honored)
In other words June polls are utterly worthless, i don’t think McCain has much of a chance but lets not get overconfident over useless polls.
Yes, TS, I am very aware, and have explicitly stated many times, that the polls will surge and tighten back and forth, and are a poor indicator of results this far away … but Nate of fivethirtyeight has a very good point. Part of those swings you’ve referenced was the result of the fact that the GOP was able to change the public’s perception of the Dem nominee from a moderate to a liberal and thus drive support away - but Obama already is perceived as a liberal, and is this far ahead anyway. There is unlikely to be a swing away because of that factor anyway. Also McCain’s convention bounce will be muted some by Ron Paul and Barr getting some press. Meanwhile Obama’s convention will have nothing to distract from a coordinated media blitz. Obama is competitive in many states that he may not win, that he doesn’t need to win, but that McCain will now need to defend and stretch thin doing.
Forks are still on their napkins but those of us who hunger for an Obama win are liking the finger food being served for appetizers.
Clearly McCain needs the nuclear option.
The Colbert Bump.