Nikki Haley

Political discussions
User avatar
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47622
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina
A.K.A.: Shameless Street Dog

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby Ibanez » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:38 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
Winterborn wrote:If the polls going into the election were wrong, why should anybody believe the exit polls? :coffee:

And I disagree on his wining was based off “xenophobia”. Yes, for a small majority of people on both sides of the isle it was, but it is just what gets published as it is a good narrative to sell newspapers. It was people seeing that the status quo under Obama (and that would more than likely continue or get worse under Hillary) was not going to continue working and that a change was needed. I have friends that own small business and they are doing much better now and have greater hope to stay in business then they had through the previous administration. The policies in place by the previous administration were not small business friendly. Which is reflected in the current small business optimism index being the highest since Reagan was president. People vote based on their wallets and paychecks.


You may have not seen me write on the topic of the polls before but the polls for the 2016 election were not "wrong." What they indicated is that Clinton would win the popular vote but the electoral college was too close to call. The RealClearPolitics average of polls on the overall vote on election eve estimated Clinton by 3.3 percentage points and she won the overall vote by 2.1 percentage points.

With respect to the electoral college: The election eve RealClearPolitics Electoral Map is still up at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... e_map.html. It has neither candidate with the necessary 270 electoral votes needed to win. It's got 15 jurisdictions (13 whole states plus the two Maine jurisdictions) as toss ups. Note the blue and red shading. There are 39 jurisdictions on the map whereby the information was sufficient to make some kind of call. In 38 of 39 cases the candidate indicated as favored in the State won it. The only exception was Wisconsin. But Wisconsin was at the lowest level of confidence with respect to the call (Leans). I don't think being right in 38 of 39 cases is bad.

You may not have seen it before but this is not something I am just saying now. I posted on this board on election eve that the polls did not provide sufficient evidence to say Clinton was going to win. The problem wasn't the polls. It was pundits who, I think, just couldn't believe enough people would vote for somebody like Trump to allow him to win.

The premise that we shouldn't believe the polls because they were "wrong" for the 2016 election is a false one. Polls always have some error. And that's understood. But the polls were not wildly off for the 2016 Presidential election. They suggested Clinton would get more votes and she got more votes.

And I guarantee you that Republican political professionals are not dismissing polls. They are using them. They are doing their own.

It's not that NOBODY who thought the economy was the most important issue voted for Trump. In Michigan, for instance, 52% of exit poll respondents said the economy was the most important issue and 43% of those who said that voted for Trump. So a lot of people who thought it was the most important issue voted for Trump. But 51% said they voted for Clinton. The sample size was 2812; which means it's virtually certain that most of the people who voted in that State who thought the economy was the most important issue voted for Clinton than for Trump.
Voting by people who thought the economy was the most important issue was a net negative for Trump. There is no reasonable doubt about that.

Meanwhile White Evangelical Christian respondents voted for Trump over Clinton by 81% to 14%. It's unfortunate that the exit polling didn't ask questions about things like abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. But White Evangelical Christians didn't vote by that overwhelming majority for Trump because of the economy. I think we all know that if we're honest with ourselves.

I know you can’t help it, and it’s somewhat relevant, but can we not have every thread became another one of your diatribes against Trump, his supporters and your poll analysis?


We all know your position. Not every thread needs to become a dissertation on the 2016 election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17720
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby CID1990 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:20 am

Ibanez wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
You may have not seen me write on the topic of the polls before but the polls for the 2016 election were not "wrong." What they indicated is that Clinton would win the popular vote but the electoral college was too close to call. The RealClearPolitics average of polls on the overall vote on election eve estimated Clinton by 3.3 percentage points and she won the overall vote by 2.1 percentage points.

With respect to the electoral college: The election eve RealClearPolitics Electoral Map is still up at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... e_map.html. It has neither candidate with the necessary 270 electoral votes needed to win. It's got 15 jurisdictions (13 whole states plus the two Maine jurisdictions) as toss ups. Note the blue and red shading. There are 39 jurisdictions on the map whereby the information was sufficient to make some kind of call. In 38 of 39 cases the candidate indicated as favored in the State won it. The only exception was Wisconsin. But Wisconsin was at the lowest level of confidence with respect to the call (Leans). I don't think being right in 38 of 39 cases is bad.

You may not have seen it before but this is not something I am just saying now. I posted on this board on election eve that the polls did not provide sufficient evidence to say Clinton was going to win. The problem wasn't the polls. It was pundits who, I think, just couldn't believe enough people would vote for somebody like Trump to allow him to win.

The premise that we shouldn't believe the polls because they were "wrong" for the 2016 election is a false one. Polls always have some error. And that's understood. But the polls were not wildly off for the 2016 Presidential election. They suggested Clinton would get more votes and she got more votes.

And I guarantee you that Republican political professionals are not dismissing polls. They are using them. They are doing their own.

It's not that NOBODY who thought the economy was the most important issue voted for Trump. In Michigan, for instance, 52% of exit poll respondents said the economy was the most important issue and 43% of those who said that voted for Trump. So a lot of people who thought it was the most important issue voted for Trump. But 51% said they voted for Clinton. The sample size was 2812; which means it's virtually certain that most of the people who voted in that State who thought the economy was the most important issue voted for Clinton than for Trump.
Voting by people who thought the economy was the most important issue was a net negative for Trump. There is no reasonable doubt about that.

Meanwhile White Evangelical Christian respondents voted for Trump over Clinton by 81% to 14%. It's unfortunate that the exit polling didn't ask questions about things like abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. But White Evangelical Christians didn't vote by that overwhelming majority for Trump because of the economy. I think we all know that if we're honest with ourselves.

I know you can’t help it, and it’s somewhat relevant, but can we not have every thread became another one of your diatribes against Trump, his supporters and your poll analysis?


We all know your position. Not every thread needs to become a dissertation on the 2016 election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Think of it as a nervous tic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17720
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby CID1990 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:20 am

Ibanez wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
You may have not seen me write on the topic of the polls before but the polls for the 2016 election were not "wrong." What they indicated is that Clinton would win the popular vote but the electoral college was too close to call. The RealClearPolitics average of polls on the overall vote on election eve estimated Clinton by 3.3 percentage points and she won the overall vote by 2.1 percentage points.

With respect to the electoral college: The election eve RealClearPolitics Electoral Map is still up at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... e_map.html. It has neither candidate with the necessary 270 electoral votes needed to win. It's got 15 jurisdictions (13 whole states plus the two Maine jurisdictions) as toss ups. Note the blue and red shading. There are 39 jurisdictions on the map whereby the information was sufficient to make some kind of call. In 38 of 39 cases the candidate indicated as favored in the State won it. The only exception was Wisconsin. But Wisconsin was at the lowest level of confidence with respect to the call (Leans). I don't think being right in 38 of 39 cases is bad.

You may not have seen it before but this is not something I am just saying now. I posted on this board on election eve that the polls did not provide sufficient evidence to say Clinton was going to win. The problem wasn't the polls. It was pundits who, I think, just couldn't believe enough people would vote for somebody like Trump to allow him to win.

The premise that we shouldn't believe the polls because they were "wrong" for the 2016 election is a false one. Polls always have some error. And that's understood. But the polls were not wildly off for the 2016 Presidential election. They suggested Clinton would get more votes and she got more votes.

And I guarantee you that Republican political professionals are not dismissing polls. They are using them. They are doing their own.

It's not that NOBODY who thought the economy was the most important issue voted for Trump. In Michigan, for instance, 52% of exit poll respondents said the economy was the most important issue and 43% of those who said that voted for Trump. So a lot of people who thought it was the most important issue voted for Trump. But 51% said they voted for Clinton. The sample size was 2812; which means it's virtually certain that most of the people who voted in that State who thought the economy was the most important issue voted for Clinton than for Trump.
Voting by people who thought the economy was the most important issue was a net negative for Trump. There is no reasonable doubt about that.

Meanwhile White Evangelical Christian respondents voted for Trump over Clinton by 81% to 14%. It's unfortunate that the exit polling didn't ask questions about things like abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. But White Evangelical Christians didn't vote by that overwhelming majority for Trump because of the economy. I think we all know that if we're honest with ourselves.

I know you can’t help it, and it’s somewhat relevant, but can we not have every thread became another one of your diatribes against Trump, his supporters and your poll analysis?


We all know your position. Not every thread needs to become a dissertation on the 2016 election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Think of it as a nervous tic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

css75
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1073
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:45 pm

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby css75 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:38 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
Winterborn wrote:
I thought the economy did not influence voters or was I just reading your past missives wrong?


I have never believed that one SHOULD vote based on what the economy is doing at the time. And I do not do that. To my recollection what the economy has been doing at the time has never been a factor in any of my voting decisions over 42 years of voting.

At the same time, the reality is that what the economy is doing at the time DOES impact the way many people vote. So I think it'd be good to have a little bit of a disturbance right now in order to increase the odds of having the Democrats gain control of at least one House of Congress.



Let me see if I get this. You want the economy to tank, people to lose jobs, and so forth, just so Dems can pick up seats. Guess you have joined the hate America club, you “conservative”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 15975
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby JohnStOnge » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:43 am

css75 wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:


Let me see if I get this. You want the economy to tank, people to lose jobs, and so forth, just so Dems can pick up seats. Guess you have joined the hate America club, you “conservative”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Not at all. There will be variation in the economy. I have been consistent in writing/saying, over many years, that I think people attribute way too much of the variation to who is President at the time. But it's going to happen. There are going to be ups and downs. And when they happen, though I think it's in error, it will impact political support decisions for some people. There is no reason not to hope that there is a "down" in the course of this variation that happens to occur right when the country needs for the Democrats to take control of at least one house of Congress.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 15975
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby JohnStOnge » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:12 am

Ibanez wrote:I know you can’t help it, and it’s somewhat relevant, but can we not have every thread became another one of your diatribes against Trump, his supporters and your poll analysis?
.


It was indeed a poll analysis. But it wasn't a diatribe against Trump. Someone mentioned the common myth about the polls being off for the 2016 election so I responded with the truth. In that regard, I did another one. This time I just looked at the departures between what the RealClearPolitics average of polls was for each of the 14 "toss up" states and what the actual outcomes were. I did it in terms of estimated margin for Clinton minus actual margin. So a positive number means a given poll average under estimated how Clinton did and a negative number means it under estimated how Trump did. The overall average is the overall bias.

The average departure, or bias, is -0.99. So the "toss up" state poll averages under estimated how Trump did by an average of less than one percentage point. Also, -0.99 is not "significantly" different from 0 in this case. So there is not sufficient evidence, by convention, to even say there was a bias at all.

The average of the absolute values of the differences is 2.34. That's not bad at all.

The averages underestimated Clinton for 5 of the "toss up" states and underestimated Trump for 9 of them. So, again, some suggestion of a slight bias in Clinton's direction. But, again, not a "significant" difference.

It bears repeating that, by the RealClearPolitics analysis, there was only one case where polls provided what is considered to be sufficient evidence to say one candidate or the other would win but the actual result went the other way. That was Wisconsin. And when one judges such thing the standard for "sufficient evidence" is associated with the assumption that you'll be wrong 1 in each 20 times. So it's no big deal that the polls were "wrong" in one instance.

I did not make any of that up. You can look at it yourself. If you want you can list out the estimates for the "toss up" states yourself and do the math. This is not debatable.

So, again, if you dismiss what polls suggest because you think the 2016 election polls were wildly off and indicated as of election eve that Clinton was certain to win, you are buying into a false popular perception. There is no benefit in that.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17720
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby CID1990 » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:17 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
Ibanez wrote:I know you can’t help it, and it’s somewhat relevant, but can we not have every thread became another one of your diatribes against Trump, his supporters and your poll analysis?
.


It was indeed a poll analysis. But it wasn't a diatribe against Trump. Someone mentioned the common myth about the polls being off for the 2016 election so I responded with the truth. In that regard, I did another one. This time I just looked at the departures between what the RealClearPolitics average of polls was for each of the 14 "toss up" states and what the actual outcomes were. I did it in terms of estimated margin for Clinton minus actual margin. So a positive number means a given poll average under estimated how Clinton did and a negative number means it under estimated how Trump did. The overall average is the overall bias.

The average departure, or bias, is -0.99. So the "toss up" state poll averages under estimated how Trump did by an average of less than one percentage point. Also, -0.99 is not "significantly" different from 0 in this case. So there is not sufficient evidence, by convention, to even say there was a bias at all.

The average of the absolute values of the differences is 2.34. That's not bad at all.

The averages underestimated Clinton for 5 of the "toss up" states and underestimated Trump for 9 of them. So, again, some suggestion of a slight bias in Clinton's direction. But, again, not a "significant" difference.

It bears repeating that, by the RealClearPolitics analysis, there was only one case where polls provided what is considered to be sufficient evidence to say one candidate or the other would win but the actual result went the other way. That was Wisconsin. And when one judges such thing the standard for "sufficient evidence" is associated with the assumption that you'll be wrong 1 in each 20 times. So it's no big deal that the polls were "wrong" in one instance.

I did not make any of that up. You can look at it yourself. If you want you can list out the estimates for the "toss up" states yourself and do the math. This is not debatable.

So, again, if you dismiss what polls suggest because you think the 2016 election polls were wildly off and indicated as of election eve that Clinton was certain to win, you are buying into a false popular perception. There is no benefit in that.


TL/DR


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 20167
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby Ivytalk » Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:49 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
Ibanez wrote:I know you can’t help it, and it’s somewhat relevant, but can we not have every thread became another one of your diatribes against Trump, his supporters and your poll analysis?
.


It was indeed a poll analysis. But it wasn't a diatribe against Trump. Someone mentioned the common myth about the polls being off for the 2016 election so I responded with the truth. In that regard, I did another one. This time I just looked at the departures between what the RealClearPolitics average of polls was for each of the 14 "toss up" states and what the actual outcomes were. I did it in terms of estimated margin for Clinton minus actual margin. So a positive number means a given poll average under estimated how Clinton did and a negative number means it under estimated how Trump did. The overall average is the overall bias.

The average departure, or bias, is -0.99. So the "toss up" state poll averages under estimated how Trump did by an average of less than one percentage point. Also, -0.99 is not "significantly" different from 0 in this case. So there is not sufficient evidence, by convention, to even say there was a bias at all.

The average of the absolute values of the differences is 2.34. That's not bad at all.

The averages underestimated Clinton for 5 of the "toss up" states and underestimated Trump for 9 of them. So, again, some suggestion of a slight bias in Clinton's direction. But, again, not a "significant" difference.

It bears repeating that, by the RealClearPolitics analysis, there was only one case where polls provided what is considered to be sufficient evidence to say one candidate or the other would win but the actual result went the other way. That was Wisconsin. And when one judges such thing the standard for "sufficient evidence" is associated with the assumption that you'll be wrong 1 in each 20 times. So it's no big deal that the polls were "wrong" in one instance.

I did not make any of that up. You can look at it yourself. If you want you can list out the estimates for the "toss up" states yourself and do the math. This is not debatable.

So, again, if you dismiss what polls suggest because you think the 2016 election polls were wildly off and indicated as of election eve that Clinton was certain to win, you are buying into a false popular perception. There is no benefit in that.

Excerpted from J. StOnge, Probability and Statistics, (Trump ed. 2018).
Don’t get me wrong. I am generally a fan of tax increases. — John “Bernie!” St. Onge 11/16/18

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39100
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby kalm » Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:07 am

Ivytalk wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
It was indeed a poll analysis. But it wasn't a diatribe against Trump. Someone mentioned the common myth about the polls being off for the 2016 election so I responded with the truth. In that regard, I did another one. This time I just looked at the departures between what the RealClearPolitics average of polls was for each of the 14 "toss up" states and what the actual outcomes were. I did it in terms of estimated margin for Clinton minus actual margin. So a positive number means a given poll average under estimated how Clinton did and a negative number means it under estimated how Trump did. The overall average is the overall bias.

The average departure, or bias, is -0.99. So the "toss up" state poll averages under estimated how Trump did by an average of less than one percentage point. Also, -0.99 is not "significantly" different from 0 in this case. So there is not sufficient evidence, by convention, to even say there was a bias at all.

The average of the absolute values of the differences is 2.34. That's not bad at all.

The averages underestimated Clinton for 5 of the "toss up" states and underestimated Trump for 9 of them. So, again, some suggestion of a slight bias in Clinton's direction. But, again, not a "significant" difference.

It bears repeating that, by the RealClearPolitics analysis, there was only one case where polls provided what is considered to be sufficient evidence to say one candidate or the other would win but the actual result went the other way. That was Wisconsin. And when one judges such thing the standard for "sufficient evidence" is associated with the assumption that you'll be wrong 1 in each 20 times. So it's no big deal that the polls were "wrong" in one instance.

I did not make any of that up. You can look at it yourself. If you want you can list out the estimates for the "toss up" states yourself and do the math. This is not debatable.

So, again, if you dismiss what polls suggest because you think the 2016 election polls were wildly off and indicated as of election eve that Clinton was certain to win, you are buying into a false popular perception. There is no benefit in that.

Excerpted from J. StOnge, Probability and Statistics, (Trump ed. 2018).


There's more poll analysis going on in this thread than at one of Dback's softball games.
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47622
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina
A.K.A.: Shameless Street Dog

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby Ibanez » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:30 am

Ivytalk wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
It was indeed a poll analysis. But it wasn't a diatribe against Trump. Someone mentioned the common myth about the polls being off for the 2016 election so I responded with the truth. In that regard, I did another one. This time I just looked at the departures between what the RealClearPolitics average of polls was for each of the 14 "toss up" states and what the actual outcomes were. I did it in terms of estimated margin for Clinton minus actual margin. So a positive number means a given poll average under estimated how Clinton did and a negative number means it under estimated how Trump did. The overall average is the overall bias.

The average departure, or bias, is -0.99. So the "toss up" state poll averages under estimated how Trump did by an average of less than one percentage point. Also, -0.99 is not "significantly" different from 0 in this case. So there is not sufficient evidence, by convention, to even say there was a bias at all.

The average of the absolute values of the differences is 2.34. That's not bad at all.

The averages underestimated Clinton for 5 of the "toss up" states and underestimated Trump for 9 of them. So, again, some suggestion of a slight bias in Clinton's direction. But, again, not a "significant" difference.

It bears repeating that, by the RealClearPolitics analysis, there was only one case where polls provided what is considered to be sufficient evidence to say one candidate or the other would win but the actual result went the other way. That was Wisconsin. And when one judges such thing the standard for "sufficient evidence" is associated with the assumption that you'll be wrong 1 in each 20 times. So it's no big deal that the polls were "wrong" in one instance.

I did not make any of that up. You can look at it yourself. If you want you can list out the estimates for the "toss up" states yourself and do the math. This is not debatable.

So, again, if you dismiss what polls suggest because you think the 2016 election polls were wildly off and indicated as of election eve that Clinton was certain to win, you are buying into a false popular perception. There is no benefit in that.

Excerpted from J. StOnge, Probability and Statistics, (Trump ed. 2018).

Is that a 1st Edition?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 31993
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby CAA Flagship » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:40 am

kalm wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:Excerpted from J. StOnge, Probability and Statistics, (Trump ed. 2018).


There's more poll analysis going on in this thread than at one of Dback's softball games.

*pole

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39100
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby kalm » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:52 am

CAA Flagship wrote:
kalm wrote:
There's more poll analysis going on in this thread than at one of Dback's softball games.

*pole


**** up Flaggy. I was making a funny.
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47953
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby AZGrizFan » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:24 am

kalm wrote:
CAA Flagship wrote:*pole


**** up Flaggy. I was making a funny.


And there's another one. :kisswink: :kisswink:
"Ah ****. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
Winterborn
Level2
Level2
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby Winterborn » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:27 am

Ivytalk wrote:Excerpted from J. StOnge, Probability and Statistics, (Trump ed. 2018).


I was under the impression that in both the MLA and APA authors were cited last name, than first name?

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 15975
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby JohnStOnge » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:54 pm

Guys, the bottom line is that if you buy into that thing about not believing the polls you are only fooling yourself. Now, there is inherent imprecision. For example: The latest ABC News Washington Post Poll on the generic Congressional ballot has poll respondents saying they'll vote for Democrats over Republicans by an 11 percentage point margin. But the 95% confidence interval for the margin is anywhere from Democrats by 4 percentage points to Democrats by 18 percentage points. If it's Democrats by 4 percentage points overall the Republicans probably keep the House. If it's Democrats by 18 percentage points it's a "Blue Wave."

But the polls by credible polling organizations are by FAR the best information you have on public sentiment.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 20167
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby Ivytalk » Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:16 pm

Winterborn wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:Excerpted from J. StOnge, Probability and Statistics, (Trump ed. 2018).


I was under the impression that in both the MLA and APA authors were cited last name, than first name?

Bite me, Winterborn.
Don’t get me wrong. I am generally a fan of tax increases. — John “Bernie!” St. Onge 11/16/18

User avatar
Winterborn
Level2
Level2
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Nikki Haley

Postby Winterborn » Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:25 pm

Ivytalk wrote:
Winterborn wrote:
I was under the impression that in both the MLA and APA authors were cited last name, than first name?

Bite me, Winterborn.


Sorry, my calendar is booked. :tothehand:


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 89Hen, AshevilleApp, AZGrizFan, Google [Bot], Pwns and 55 guests