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
How polls are intellectually lazy
Topic Started: Sep 24 2003, 09:53 AM (456 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Here is an analysis of the "scientific" poll put out by CNN/USA Today/Gallup the other day. As I said before, you can conduct a poll to say whatever you want... if you have the agenda. (My info courtesy of 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.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
I don't think, at this point, that Clark has legs for the long run.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 24 2003, 09:53 AM
Here is an analysis of the "scientific" poll put out by CNN/USA Today/Gallup the other day. As I said before, you can conduct a poll to say whatever you want... if you have the agenda. (My info courtesy of 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.

if you can put out a poll to say whatever you want, (and this administration is not backward at coming forward is it ?) can you show me a poll that says Bush's approval ratings are increasing, OR that people's concerns about Iraq are decreasing OR people's concerns about Bush's handling of Iraq is improving ????
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec: thanks for the information from the WSJ - very reputable publication. Gallup has a reputation of its own.

The survey was random - conducted over the phone - some of the respondents were registered voters and some of the respondents weren't. The poll results are divided along the registered voter/not registered voter line. Remember, the poll was random!

Here's the verbiage of the question that asks the respondent to pick between General Clark and President Bush:

If retired General Wesley Clark were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for — Wesley Clark, the Democrat or George W. Bush, the Republican?

It's a straight forward question that almost any adult in the USA (or world!) would be able to answer. The "operator" asking the questions could use voice tone or inflection to lead the respondent - but I think it is just paranoid to think that the operators tried to influence the respondents' answers.

I'll speak for myself: my rating of President Bush's job performance has gone down considerably in the past 6 months. I think a lot of Americans feel the same way. President Bush has been almost invincible for the past year and a half. Now the Democrats have a real opportunity to capitalize on President Bush's momentary vulnerability - and at the moment it looks like Americans think that General Wesley Clark is the guy to challenge the President.

I'm excited! I love this stuff!
| Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

President Bush's Job Approval Rating At Lowest Level Ever.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971384.asp?0cv=CA00

Are you worried, Admiralbill_gomec? Or are you just trusting that the ultra-Liberals have released another libelous poll? :) I think he's (President Bush) worried!

A parallel course:

* President George H.W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term

* President George W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term

I'm just wondering which two-term Democrat will follow President George W. Bush?!?

Ha!
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
You of course realize that the text (not verbiage... verbiage is "a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content") of the question might not be what was printed in the paper, right?

Secondly, you want to survey either registered voters or likely voters when it comes to elections. This lends validity to a poll, as these people might actually have thought about the topic, instead of say... a knee-jerk teen who gets his news from MTV. Random surveys are far less accurate. Gallup's "reputation" has suffered in the past ten years, mostly over rah-rah polls about Bill Clinton during impeachment.

I've been surveyed many a time. I believe I'm now on their "do not call list" because I was rather opinionated in my answers.

As for being excited, this is good. Hopefully this will make you VOTE. But one poll like this doesn't excite me... it enrages me because of its CRASS MANIPULATION. If I were to see this poll in the WSJ, I'd worry quite a bit. Because of its location, I don't give it a lot of weight.

As for Wes Clark, I've never met him or served under his command... thank God. I know people who have, and he is well-despised. What Hugh Shelton said yesterday should be a huge wake-up call to our flavor of the month, Wesley "Stalking Horse" Clark.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

benetil
Sep 24 2003, 06:17 PM
President Bush's Job Approval Rating At Lowest Level Ever.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971384.asp?0cv=CA00

Are you worried, Admiralbill_gomec? Or are you just trusting that the ultra-Liberals have released another libelous poll? :) I think he's (President Bush) worried!

A parallel course:

* President George H.W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term

* President George W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term

I'm just wondering which two-term Democrat will follow President George W. Bush?!?

Ha!

Oh, the Wall Street Journal participated in this poll! A very reputable publication, that Wall Street Journal is!
| Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
benetil
Sep 24 2003, 06:17 PM
President Bush's Job Approval Rating At Lowest Level Ever.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971384.asp?0cv=CA00

Are you worried, Admiralbill_gomec? Or are you just trusting that the ultra-Liberals have released another libelous poll? :) I think he's (President Bush) worried!

A parallel course:

* President George H.W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term

* President George W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term

I'm just wondering which two-term Democrat will follow President George W. Bush?!?

Ha!

me too - I love the political stuff.

BTW - a reference to the article quoted...........the Reps must be crapping themselves - Bush Jnr is no Clinton, Reagan or Truman.

Roll on the debates I say !!!!!!!

(without being too cruel)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
benetil
Sep 24 2003, 06:20 PM
benetil
Sep 24 2003, 06:17 PM
President Bush's Job Approval Rating At Lowest Level Ever.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971384.asp?0cv=CA00

Are you worried, Admiralbill_gomec? Or are you just trusting that the ultra-Liberals have released another libelous poll? :) I think he's (President Bush) worried!

A parallel course:

* President George H.W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term

* President George W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term

I'm just wondering which two-term Democrat will follow President George W. Bush?!?

Ha!

Oh, the Wall Street Journal participated in this poll! A very reputable publication, that Wall Street Journal is!

I'm still not worried... except for NZ's trolling. That's starting to annoy me.

As I've said before, we have been out of a MILD recession for 2 years now. I wish you'd actually see the truth.

These polls are nothing more than piling on. You'll see them reverse next week. What will you do then?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Sep 24 2003, 06:24 PM
me too - I love the political stuff.

BTW - a reference to the article quoted...........the Reps must be crapping themselves - Bush Jnr is no Clinton, Reagan or Truman.

Roll on the debates I say !!!!!!!

(without being too cruel)

Kiss my ass...

(without being too cruel)



(You're trolling, NZ. I'd be careful.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 24 2003, 06:20 PM
You of course realize that the text (not verbiage... verbiage is "a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content") of the question might not be what was printed in the paper, right?

Secondly, you want to survey either registered voters or likely voters when it comes to elections. This lends validity to a poll, as these people might actually have thought about the topic, instead of say... a knee-jerk teen who gets his news from MTV. Random surveys are far less accurate. Gallup's "reputation" has suffered in the past ten years, mostly over rah-rah polls about Bill Clinton during impeachment.

I've been surveyed many a time. I believe I'm now on their "do not call list" because I was rather opinionated in my answers.

As for being excited, this is good. Hopefully this will make you VOTE. But one poll like this doesn't excite me... it enrages me because of its CRASS MANIPULATION. If I were to see this poll in the WSJ, I'd worry quite a bit. Because of its location, I don't give it a lot of weight.

As for Wes Clark, I've never met him or served under his command... thank God. I know people who have, and he is well-despised. What Hugh Shelton said yesterday should be a huge wake-up call to our flavor of the month, Wesley "Stalking Horse" Clark.

Admiralbill_gomec: thanks for the correction on the term "verbiage" - my mistake. Your question is plausible - especially if you're inclined to refute the message contained in the poll results.

re: "knee-jerk teen who gets his news from MTV" - there's a whole generation of "such" and portions of that demographic are of voing age.

re: "registered voters" - I think record numbers of Americans will turn out to vote in the election of 2004. Many of the "adults" who are not currently registered to vote will be registered by the time that the election comes around! Their opinions count!

General Clark is amassing a powerful following - even if he's not attracting the military establishment and the neo-Conservatives. I think he would offer a formidable challenge to President Bush in a debate.

America is watching!
| Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 24 2003, 06:37 PM
I'm still not worried... except for NZ's trolling. That's starting to annoy me.

As I've said before, we have been out of a MILD recession for 2 years now. I wish you'd actually see the truth.

These polls are nothing more than piling on. You'll see them reverse next week. What will you do then?

Admiralbill_gomec: I know you're right about the polls - I'll try to be as good a sport as you are when my fortunes change.

I'm not trying to aggravate you (too much) and I'm certainly not trying to get personal. I'm just taking advantage of the only ray of light that I've seen in nearly two years (ray of hope as far as limiting President Bush to one-term).

Take care.
| Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 24 2003, 06:40 PM
nztrekkie
Sep 24 2003, 06:24 PM
me too - I love the political stuff.

BTW - a reference to the article quoted...........the Reps must be crapping themselves - Bush Jnr is no Clinton, Reagan or Truman.

Roll on the debates I say !!!!!!!

(without being too cruel)

Kiss my ass...

(without being too cruel)



(You're trolling, NZ. I'd be careful.)

what the hell is trolling ?

if by that you mean deliberately posting views and comments that challenge people then yes I do that.

what is wrong with it anyway ?

if you haven't noticed people in other parts of the world ask alot more questions -challenging and otherwise - than in the US.

eg: weekly question times of the PM in the Parliament of UK, Australia, NZ etc.....

regular - weekly in NZ - press conferences by the PM for people to ask questions.

Our leading politicians here regularly appear on TV and have to justify themselves to the people - are you not familiar with this?

is this trolling too ?

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
benetil
Sep 24 2003, 06:45 PM
Admiralbill_gomec: thanks for the correction on the term "verbiage" - my mistake. Your question is plausible - especially if you're inclined to refute the message contained in the poll results.

re: "knee-jerk teen who gets his news from MTV" - there's a whole generation of "such" and portions of that demographic are of voing age.

re: "registered voters" - I think record numbers of Americans will turn out to vote in the election of 2004. Many of the "adults" who are not currently registered to vote will be registered by the time that the election comes around! Their opinions count!

General Clark is amassing a powerful following - even if he's not attracting the military establishment and the neo-Conservatives. I think he would offer a formidable challenge to President Bush in a debate.

America is watching!

Don't worry about the verbiage thing... the word has fallen into such common use (or misuse) that the definition will probably adapt.

The reason I mentioned knee-jerk teens was that they DON'T VOTE. Statistically, the angry, bitter teen you saw at the so-called peace rallies aren't even registered to vote. Worse, most are too young anyway.

I don't think we'll see 50% this year either. I expected it in 2000. I even "wargamed" the election in 2000 that way, but we'll still see somewhere around 45% voter turnout again.

Wesley Clark, I'll say it again, is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton (for those who don't know, a stalking horse is a horse behind which a hunter hides while stalking game... in other words, a false front).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Sep 24 2003, 06:51 PM

what the hell is trolling ?

if by that you mean deliberately posting views and comments that challenge people then yes I do that.

what is wrong with it anyway ?

if you haven't noticed people in other parts of the world ask alot more questions -challenging and otherwise - than in the US.

eg: weekly question times of the PM in the Parliament of UK, Australia, NZ etc.....

regular - weekly in NZ - press conferences by the PM for people to ask questions.

Our leading politicians here regularly appear on TV and have to justify themselves to the people - are you not familiar with this?

is this trolling too ?

Trolling is deliberately posting to get an angry reaction from one or more posters.

There is a difference between challenging someone to a debate and saying something you KNOW will anger them. You damned well know the difference... don't pull this "justify themselves" crap with me.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus