And yet I could pull up my own post where someone pointed out that I was wrong and I admitted it. It wasn't even that long ago. Meanwhile, its probably been a month since fskimospy couldn't figure out if 60 was between 60 and 100.
If Podesta wants to poll Democrats, I'm certain he has binders...
You say you understand it, but then you also say that you can't do anything with an unrepresentative sample except produce incorrect information. Certainly you see the problem here.
You act as if getting a sample that isn't representative of the population is a new problem in statistics. It isn't. I still haven't advocated for altering the sample. So, you're still wrong and now I've told you that you're wrong an additional time. As you can see, despite my best effort...
Yet I've never advocated doing anything to the sample. I stopped reading there because I've told you that repeatedly. You should work on your communication skills after your basic math review.
Thank you, Mr. Gruber. If the polling company does this 'all the time,' for what purpose would they have to be told to select more persons of color and fewer old people in Florida in order to 'maximize what they get' out of their polling?
It seems like they're targeting groups that they...
Because the ratio of registered party members is wrong. There's data on this so I don't know why they made such an obvious mistake. That Hillary allegedly lost 10% of her advantage in less than a week on no significant events indicates a flaw.
I don't know why you think I want them to...
Yes, I read your politifact link. They speculate what 'he' meant because Russians wrote that email, right?
The WAPO poll oversampled registered democrats well beyond statistics of voter registrations. Why do this if your goal is accurate data?
It was in one of the podesta emails. It helps to explain why Hilary's lead in the ABC/WAPO poll has shrunk from H +12 to H +2 in less than a week when the polling completed before the Huma Danger news broke.
I see. So I'm here for the purpose of being insulted and I'm supposed to carefully consider what you have to say because you really put yourself out there with your bothering to respond to my "ranting."
Could you specify what makes a post a rant? I'd like your objective opinion, if you have one.
How disappointing. I had hoped there was at least a little more to this than the implication that I was lying, which I have to conclude (due to lack of data) is simply a manifestation of your will.
This makes you the second person today suffering under the misapprehension that what happens...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.