I've said before media doesn't want accuracy, they are a business, they want to make money. And a close race, regardless of whether it's actually close or not works best for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Printable View
I've said before media doesn't want accuracy, they are a business, they want to make money. And a close race, regardless of whether it's actually close or not works best for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
And it also says...
"Unskewed, the data indicates that Mitt Romney would lead 52 percent to 46 percent using more balanced weighting of the sample."
So based on the results, was it skewed? Or not?
And here is the page for the author of that article...
http://www.examiner.com/conservative.../dean-chambers
You really shouldn't let yourself be taken in by these people, Alan.
I'll admit that the oversampling involved seems to achieve the desired result, without being at all accurate. In retrospect, I'm not sure how anyone could conduct a poll with weighting several points over actual turnout in 2008 and be considered accurate. Actual voter turnout proves that they weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
The thing I'm at a loss to explain is voter enthusiasm levels. It surprises me to see that Republican turnout was lower than expected and that Democratic turnout was higher. These are not facts which could have been anticipated in the months leading up to the election.
Regardless, enjoy your gloat while you can. Remember a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
Alan, a poll here or there was definitely wrong (Rsmussin and Gallup, for example), but overall and taken as an aggregate, they were right, all the way through. Especially on the state level. As I mentioned, the polls when taken together were wrong by less than 1%.
So, the whole weighting and oversampling thing was a myth, cooked up by those who did not want to believe what they were hearing and seeing. It is what brought us a shocked campaign and a stunned right wing media.
And a very self satisfied Oklahoma Democrat.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...-politics.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Some of them saw Repubs the same as Dems. We shouldn't be surprised.
No, oversampling was a fact. A win does not change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
If you discount the power of the etch-a-sketch, the Republican candidates really slammed each other during the primaries - and there seemed to be a fairly large "anyone but Romney" contingent early on. Add to that how far to the left Romney slid toward the end going for the moderate vote and I could see how they could have been less energized to get out and vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
No. Not that I know of. I just had to call it something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
It wasn't just a win. Once again, the polls were state by state within less than one percentage point of perfect. That means there WAS no oversampling. The sampling was dead on balls accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Sheesh, Alan. No wonder you believe everything those people at Fox tell you.
;)
I can see that whatever gas you're using to inflate yourself is having a predictable effect. :~)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller