Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wesley Clark on the issues
Topic Started: Sep 22 2003, 09:58 PM (552 Views)
benetil
Unregistered

nztrekkie
Sep 23 2003, 08:40 PM
don't forget the margin of error works BOTH ways - Clarke might actually be 6% ahead of Bush !!!

Hi, nztrekkie.

I like your way of looking at the "margin" much better than the way that I was looking at it.

President Bush is in trouble!
| Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
benetil
Sep 24 2003, 01:36 AM
Exciting. I'm thinking President George W. Bush should just go ahead and start planning his Presidential Library (and get ready to retire to his ranch in Crawford, TX :) ).

Yep, 2008 would be a perfect time to get that done ... :P

Benetil, I know about polls and what makes them statistically accurate. I'm just amazed by some of the results.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Wichita
Sep 23 2003, 08:46 PM
benetil
Sep 24 2003, 01:36 AM
Exciting. I'm thinking President George W. Bush should just go ahead and start planning his Presidential Library (and get ready to retire to his ranch in Crawford, TX :) ).

Yep, 2008 would be a perfect time to get that done ... :P

Benetil, I know about polls and what makes them statistically accurate. I'm just amazed by some of the results.

Wichita: the scary thing is that if a poll is done correctly, the results from that poll can very accurately reveal the sentiment of the larger community.

You're right to take the poll with a grain of sand, though. For all we know, the DNC handpicked all of the respondents and then bribed the pollster :) .

But I'm still celebrating the momentary vulnerability of President Bush - even if my chain is being pulled by the media.
| Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
benetil
Sep 23 2003, 08:53 PM
Wichita
Sep 23 2003, 08:46 PM
benetil
Sep 24 2003, 01:36 AM
Exciting. I'm thinking President George W. Bush should just go ahead and start planning his Presidential Library (and get ready to retire to his ranch in Crawford, TX :) ).

Yep, 2008 would be a perfect time to get that done ... :P

Benetil, I know about polls and what makes them statistically accurate. I'm just amazed by some of the results.

Wichita: the scary thing is that if a poll is done correctly, the results from that poll can very accurately reveal the sentiment of the larger community.

You're right to take the poll with a grain of sand, though. For all we know, the DNC handpicked all of the respondents and then bribed the pollster :) .

But I'm still celebrating the momentary vulnerability of President Bush - even if my chain is being pulled by the media.

polls are "snap shots" of a mood - taken individually, they don't mean anything, but when TRENDS are looked for, they can be more meaningful.

and the trend for Mr Bush has been downwards for months, and, from here at least, seems likely to continue for some time yet.

However, the only poll that counts is on election day.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Polls are the tools of the lazy and intellectually deficiant reporters and news organizations.

Basically, we can't figure out anything intelligent to say and we didn't do any work investigating a story so here is a poll that we will discuss for the next three paragraphs.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
New news about Wesley "Perfumed Prince" Clark:

His own former boss, Hugh Shelton, won't support him! Shelton was at a forum in Los Altos, California (responding to questions):

"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

I see that Clark's website has some hastily-prepared "issues" now. I had no idea that I wielded that kind of power!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Sep 23 2003, 09:01 PM
polls are "snap shots" of a mood - taken individually, they don't mean anything, but when TRENDS are looked for, they can be more meaningful.

and the trend for Mr Bush has been downwards for months, and, from here at least, seems likely to continue for some time yet.

However, the only poll that counts is on election day.

Wrong again, NZ.

The view from the other side of the world, "seems likely to continue for some time yet" is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

I'm glad though, that you at least got one sentence right... the only poll that counts is on election day.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
benetil
Sep 23 2003, 08:44 PM
nztrekkie
Sep 23 2003, 08:40 PM
don't forget the margin of error works BOTH ways - Clarke might actually be 6% ahead of Bush !!!

Hi, nztrekkie.

I like your way of looking at the "margin" much better than the way that I was looking at it.

President Bush is in trouble!

Stop rubbing your hands together in glee, Benetil.

President Bush is not in trouble. Here's why.

This is the LATEST attempt for the left to get mud to stick. This one won't work either. How do I know? Bush instructed the Senate to resubmit Charles Pickering for nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A man in trouble would not do that... he'd either "duck and cover" or attempt to placate the Democrats. As for his UN speech (which, of course, NZTrekkie did not read before he commented), did you read it. This was not a plea of a man desperate for world support but rather an urge to other nations to get on the right side. His use of the term "civilization" (implying that terror-supporting nations are uncivilized) was quite good. The speech also broke new ground in spending a third of his speech on slavery and the sex trade.

Read the speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030923-4.html

I agree with 38957 when he said that polls were "tools of the lazy and intellectually deficiant reporters and news organizations." Have you ever taken statistics, Benetil (I don't know if I've asked you this)? You can skew statistical results in any way with a few choice words. The three percentage point margin of error is laughable if the questions are leading, and the source of your poll does this every time it conducts one. This isn't scientific at all... it is SUBJECTIVE. Lastly, you have to completely question the veracity of any poll that puts an UNKNOWN candidate over another. No one knew anything about Clark (even Clark hadn't received his marching orders yet), and somehow he beat Bush in a poll? I couldn't help but laugh. I'd worry if I saw this in a credible news source, like the Wall Street Journal, but USA Today?? CNN? (The Clinton News Network?) I know you're hopeful, but it just ain't gonna happen.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
IN ADDITION:

This is to dissect Benetil's "scientific" poll (information from Best of the Web today from the WSJ):

The press has been trumpeting a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showing Wesley Clark beating President Bush, 49% to 46%. But a look at the poll results makes us suspicious. For one thing, it is a survey of "1,003 National Adults"--not registered voters or likely voters. Casting a net this wide tends to oversample Democratic voters, and sure enough, 480, or just under 48%, of those who answered the poll describe themselves as Democrats or "Democrat-leaners." That's just a percentage point less than the 49% Clark gets.

What's more, only 52% of those polled have an opinion of Clark (39% favorable, 13% unfavorable), so this is almost the equivalent of a poll pitting Bush against an "unnamed Democrat." Will Clark wear well when Americans--or, for that matter, Democrats--get to know him?

There's another possible problem for Clark, should he get the nomination: He is not liked on the lunatic fringes of the left. For example, this Counterpunch.org piece calls him a "major war criminal." The lunatic left is a tiny sliver of the electorate; we're talking about the kind of people who thought Bill Clinton should have been impeached for bombing that aspirin factory in Sudan. But as Ralph Nader showed in 2000, a small segment of the electorate can make a difference in a close race. These people may be able to stomach Howard Dean, but with Nader apparently ready to run again, it seems unlikely they'd hold their noses and vote for Clark.


This needs its own thread. I'll go do that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

38957
Sep 23 2003, 03:59 PM
I could certainly spit out my stance on the issues without consulting my handlers.

You are not a candidate for the Presidency. It's just how campaigns (that want to win) are run in this country.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
But you have to have some core beliefs. This comes down to character. If you can't espouse them without your handlers, you shouldn't be running for president.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 24 2003, 10:05 AM
But you have to have some core beliefs. This comes down to character. If you can't espouse them without your handlers, you shouldn't be running for president.

Sure, abosolutely. I'm just saying that when you set up a website with your official positions or release any prepared public statement it would be foolish not to make sure what you put out there is not misinterpreted to your detriment.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Excellent point.

If it were me, I wouldn't have put up a blank page (like Clark did) because THAT would be too easy to ridicule. If it were me, I would have gotten all my ducks in a row before deciding to run, and then put up a website.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 24 2003, 10:40 AM
Excellent point.

If it were me, I wouldn't have put up a blank page (like Clark did) because THAT would be too easy to ridicule. If it were me, I would have gotten all my ducks in a row before deciding to run, and then put up a website.

I think that's the only legitimate arguement that can be made. Good point.
| Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 24 2003, 08:59 AM
Stop rubbing your hands together in glee, Benetil.

President Bush is not in trouble. Here's why.

This is the LATEST attempt for the left to get mud to stick. This one won't work either. How do I know? Bush instructed the Senate to resubmit Charles Pickering for nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A man in trouble would not do that... he'd either "duck and cover" or attempt to placate the Democrats. As for his UN speech (which, of course, NZTrekkie did not read before he commented), did you read it. This was not a plea of a man desperate for world support but rather an urge to other nations to get on the right side. His use of the term "civilization" (implying that terror-supporting nations are uncivilized) was quite good. The speech also broke new ground in spending a third of his speech on slavery and the sex trade.

Read the speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030923-4.html

I agree with 38957 when he said that polls were "tools of the lazy and intellectually deficiant reporters and news organizations." Have you ever taken statistics, Benetil (I don't know if I've asked you this)? You can skew statistical results in any way with a few choice words. The three percentage point margin of error is laughable if the questions are leading, and the source of your poll does this every time it conducts one. This isn't scientific at all... it is SUBJECTIVE. Lastly, you have to completely question the veracity of any poll that puts an UNKNOWN candidate over another. No one knew anything about Clark (even Clark hadn't received his marching orders yet), and somehow he beat Bush in a poll? I couldn't help but laugh. I'd worry if I saw this in a credible news source, like the Wall Street Journal, but USA Today?? CNN? (The Clinton News Network?) I know you're hopeful, but it just ain't gonna happen.

Hi, Admiralbill_gomec.

President Bush certainly is in trouble - and he knows it! Rest assured, Mr. Carl Rove is one busy strategist these days! Mr. Ed Gillespie probably isn't resting too well at night, either! Ha!!

As far as Judge Pickering goes, President Bush isn't resubmitting Judge Pickering in order to gain popularity or to demonstrate his dominance. President Bush is trying (desperately) to keep the conservative elements of his party happy. With his domestic spending, President Bush has raised the eyebrows of the conservatives. He (Bush) can't afford to "duck and cover" - he has to do something to keep the conservatives in his corner.

Judge Pickering was voted down (along party lines) when the Democrats were in control of the Senate. He (Pickering) may well be confirmed this time (along party lines).

As far as the poll results that you would like to dismiss, I would tell you that I believe the true message in the poll is that Americans are looking for an alternative - ANY REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE - to President Bush. I believe that the vote "for Gen. Clark" is as much or more against President Bush as it is for Gen. Clark. And President Bush's job approval rating has fallen from 70%+ approval to just 50% approval (according to the polls that you would dismiss).

I've taken statistics, but I would not call myself a statistician. I work with large data sets every day - proper methodology, proper analysis. I also build financial models that we use to forecast and run our business. I know that a random sample - properly handled - can accurately model a larger data set or population. I also know how easy it is to sway and manipulate (accidentally or intentionally) the data, too - and then there's that whole "collinear results" problem that catches me from time to time. I also know that a good poll can provide meaningful insight - but I understand how easy it is to question or dispute the results of any poll.
| Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus