Wait, they don't control for party ID? That's the problem with today's sample, right there. :lolsyllogism said:Party id breakdown for hotline's sample today:
40%D, 38%R, 18%I.
Wait, they don't control for party ID? That's the problem with today's sample, right there. :lolsyllogism said:Party id breakdown for hotline's sample today:
40%D, 38%R, 18%I.
Cheebs said:Er...the day he gave his speech at the DNC in 2004 I claimed to everyone I know that if Kerry loses I want Obama to run in 2008 and constantly stated on gaf in that time span that I hope Obama runs, I can even find you tons of posts from before 2007 where people here mocked me for thinking Obama would run. I don't think it is possible to support him at all earlier than I did. :lol
Really? Ok, obviously they did something really weird with their numbers then. There is NO WAY its a 2% id gap.
Well if they take a large enough random sample it should get the party ID proportions roughly correct, at least from day to day. I mean, that's the whole point of random sampling.GhaleonEB said:Wait, they don't control for party ID? That's the problem with today's sample, right there. :lol
Only with 95% confidence and even then it moves within the margin of error, assuming we are talking about reasonable sample sizes hereSharp said:Well if they take a large enough random sample it should get the party ID proportions roughly correct, at least from day to day. I mean, that's the whole point of random sampling.
That is pretty shocking since Hotline/National Journal is VERY respected. Really weird. Even shitty pollsters like Zogby control party ID.GhaleonEB said:Wait, they don't control for party ID? That's the problem with today's sample, right there. :lol
What's the MoE for the Hotline poll? I know they don't use a huge sample but I always thought electoral polls got around that by controlling for demographics like party IDsyllogism said:Only with 95% confidence (assuming reasonable sample sizes) and even then it moves within the margin of error
lawblob said:So what do you guys think about Palin wanting to appear on SNL's Thursday show? Apparently she wants to do an impersonation of Tina Fey, or something.
I hope SNL goes the Oprah route, tell the Fundie princess to take a hike.
Link
You don't deserve that tag.beelzebozo said:i wondered about this, and whether or not turning her down would be seen as s.n.l. having a political agenda
DancingJesus said:Is there a place online where you can watch the entire debate?
I'd like to go to the football home game here but it's at the same time as the debate. :/
Sharp said:You don't deserve that tag.
SurveyUSA and Gallup don't control party id either, I don't see what's the big deal here. The party id variation doesn't make it shit, it just makes it more suspicious, especially when we can compare it to their typical spread.scorcho said:I can't imagine them not controlling for party ID in their statistical models. Just because there is a slightly higher number of self-identified Republicans in the poll doesn't make it shit.
It's shit regardless.
beelzebozo said:i wondered about this, and whether or not turning her down would be seen as s.n.l. having a political agenda
It's not in SNL's interest to turn her down - it'll help ratings further and give Fey more fodder to work with.beelzebozo said:i wondered about this, and whether or not turning her down would be seen as s.n.l. having a political agenda
Well okay, maybe you do. It just didn't seem to fit you well. I was originally going to respond that it was weird that some people could just demand a place on SNL and be expected to get it, while if you or I tried that they would laugh at us, but the tag confused me.beelzebozo said:elaborate
scorcho said:It's not in SNL's interest to turn her down - it'll help ratings further and give Fey more fodder to work with.
Mason said:I know a couple people who work for SNL and they're happy Sarah Palin is in the news. She kind of writes the skits herself. I'm sure they'd like to have her on (good for ratings) but there might be other circumstances preventing it.
The Lamonster said:So at what point is Sarah Palin going to start campaigning for 2012?
If the polls look like this in two weeks, I'd say that's a good time to start.
:lolSpeedingUptoStop said:You guys see this political ad yet? Obama really got his ass tore up in this one.
lawblob said:Or maybe they should have her appear, but at the last minute pull the cue cards, forcing her to do her schtick from memory. The crash & burnage would be awesome.
Nah, it was just Hotline which we've discussed used bizarre sampling. R2000 is still 8 points ahead although it was higher two days ago and Rasmussen has him tied for his all-time best.Deku said:Bad morning of polls?
The Lamonster said:FYI - the lead will shrink eventually, and McCain might even take the lead again before it's all over. So, you know, relax when it happens.
The Lamonster said:FYI - the lead will shrink eventually, and McCain might even take the lead again before it's all over. So, you know, relax when it happens.
kkaabboomm said:Can McCain Pull Off an October Surprise?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5968910&page=1
anyone else reminded of how everyone said 'if it weren't Clinton fighting Obama, this race would be over', 'never count out a clinton', etc?
sounds quite familiar
I love how she said her opponent continues to talk about the pastCloudy said:I just saw Palin's stump speech for today. She seemed to lay off the Bill Ayer's crap. I guess the reaction's been bad for them or they've accomplished what they wanted to...
Kipz said:I almost hope McCain wins just to see how bad things can get.
Kipz said:I almost hope McCain wins just to see how bad things can get.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if the McCain Palin ticket does indeed lose, expect Palin to return to Alaska and never be heard from again. Either that, or she becomes a commentator. She won't run successfully for president in 2012.The Lamonster said:So at what point is Sarah Palin going to start campaigning for 2012?
If the polls look like this in two weeks, I'd say that's a good time to start.
I think he's Australian. It's not his country that would be electing McCain.quadriplegicjon said::/ why the hell would you want that?
Cianalas said:I think he's Australian. It's not his country that would be electing McCain.
SCReuter said:Elisabeth Hasselbeck is at it again, and Sherri Shepherd of all people is owning her.
Edit: Owning her bad.
Tobor said:I can't stand this kind of statement. It's defeatism. Nothing personal.
I don't think there is a comprehensive link. Really, I think the best argument is just to remind anyone concerned about Wright that this issue was in the headlines for weeks during the primaries, and it failed to be a definitive game-changer for Clinton then. Why is it going to matter now? Is this what they're expecting: "I'm terrified about the economy, and don't think McCain has a plan to fix it. That makes me lean Obama. However, I had completely forgotten about that angry and divisive former pastor of Obama's, so I'm voting McCain!"zesty said:Goddamnit. A (normally) very rational friend of mine is trying to bring up the Rev. Wright stuff as a concern about Obama. What's the most comprehensive link I can send her to debunk any of those concerns?