#### Comment Preferences

• ##### Disappointing(none)
Again, you've got a math and statistics problem.  There isn't any evidence that 60% of Kossacks are for Gore (you might be refering to a Gore v Clark poll, but that didn't include others).  Also, again, you fail to understand the total lack of scientific validity that a volunteer poll has, especially since only about 400-1400 people took part in the polls out of 100,000 kossacks.

Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

[ Parent ]

• ##### ok(none)
a more relevant poll was the straw poll with Gore that Kos posted:

---------------
Given these 2008 choices, I would vote for:

Edwards       646 votes - 8 %
Clark       1881 votes - 24 %
Gore       3651 votes - 48 %
Clinton       362 votes - 4 %
Feingold       662 votes - 8 %
Other       176 votes - 2 %
No Freakin' Clue       192 votes - 2 %

----------------

So, I stand corrected on my 60% claim, that shoudld be 48% instead.

Here is the revised statement of mine:

Well, apaprently some 48% of Kossacks disagree with you.

Happy?

Actually, phil, YOU seem to have no clue just how statistically significantly that sample size of 7570 is? To give you an idea, the Wapo poll I quoted says this:
"Washington Post-ABC News Poll: White House 2000, Tuesday, March 16, 1999, The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll is based on random telephone interviews with 1,515 adults on March 11-14, 1999. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Here is a Margin of Error calculator for you.

Let us review:

• WaPo used a sample size of 1515 to poll roughly 200 million registered voters. Margin of error: 3% (it's actually 2.52% from the calculator above)

• Now, what is dKos's readership? If it is 100K, then MOE is 1.08%. If it is on the high end of 1 million, then MOE is 1.12%

Let's face it. You guys don't have substance in your arguments, whatsoever. Just trolling away to glory, and wasting other peoples' time :)

As for my "math and stats problem", I felt tempted to tell you a little secret, but I resisted it :)

Give it up!

• ##### Do you know(none)
the difference between a random, scientifically organized poll and a "hey-come-vote if you feel like it poll"?  Obviously you don't -- it's not about sample size, it's about if the sampling is representative.  Hense the origin of all your many mistakes.

The substance is that Gore lost a very winnable election.  If you don't understand that then your political accumene is as bad as your knowledge of polling.

And, fuck you about the troll.  Seems your unable to deal with constant defeat so you can only insult.

Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

[ Parent ]

• ##### asdf(none)
It's an online poll, for christ's sake. Is it scientific, of course not. When is the last time you saw a scientific online poll.

But even that is moot sh*t.

Because, if Edwards came out on top with 48% of the vote with the nearest rival at 24%, you'd be in jumping joy right this minute.

Get over it.

"defeat", huh. You and lando are the ones making buffoons of yourselves.

• ##### I guess you've(none)
changed your tune since this posting, so I'll largely ignore it.

If Edwards had 48% in an online, voluntary poll, you bet I'd be pleased, since it would that Edwards had a great deal of support here, and a good activist base.  I would be realistic about what this told me about dkos, and doubtful that this told me much about the netroots and Democratic primary voters.

Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

[ Parent ]

• ##### asdf(none)
If Edwards had 48% in an online, voluntary poll, you bet I'd be pleased, since it would that Edwards had a great deal of support here, and a good activist base.

Why would the poll be "representative" (a word you repeatedly use) in that case?

If it is not representative, what legitimacy do you have to claim: "it would that Edwards had a great deal of support here, and a good activist base."

I would be realistic about what this told me about dkos, and doubtful that this told me much about the netroots and Democratic primary voters.

I never laid any claim here about Dem. primary voters. since dKos is highly trafficked, there will be a very strong correlation with netroots.

• ##### try again(none)
</blockquote>

Liberal, Christian, Feminazi, Mom.

[ Parent ]

• ##### response(none)
"the difference between a random, scientifically organized poll and a "hey-come-vote if you feel like it poll"?  Obviously you don't -- it's not about sample size, it's about if the sampling is representative.  Hense the origin of all your many mistakes."

Did anyone claim that a dKos poll (as of yet) is scientific?

"The substance is that Gore lost a very winnable election."

I think that I exposed that to be a myth: a 12% margin, partly handed by Clinton's BJ did not make it a "winnable election".

"knowledge of polling."

I think I showed how little you seem to know of polling and perhaps statistics with the MOE comments above.

"And, fuck you about the troll."

Based on your more constructive comment, I don't think that you are troll. So I retract that part of my comment earlier :)

"Seems your unable to deal with constant defeat so you can only insult."

I think that the readers should be allowed to judge for themselves on whose arguments won and whose lost.

But I do think that you are unable to accept the apparent fact that Gore is quite popular over at dKos (and most likely around the netroots-at-large).

thanks for the discussion.

My bad for messing up the formatting, folks.

"Did anyone claim that a dKos poll (as of yet) is scientific?"

Yes.  You did: "Well, apaprently some 48% of Kossacks disagree with you."  But, since the poll is not representative there is no evidence that 48% of kossacks disagree with me.

"a 12% margin"
No, I came up with several critiques of your 12% Claim and you made no response.  The 12% deficit exists only in your head.

"knowledge of polling."
Quite the contrary, you only demonstrated that you know next to nothing about polling.  Sure, you can play with numbers, but even this historian isn't fooled.  The problem is that you don't have a representative sampling.  You've got a self-selected group of hardcores.

Is Gore popular?  Yep.  Never said the contrary, he probably has very large numbers, maybe around 20%.  What I've tried to show on this thread is that he is not a strong candidate for the nomination in 2008 based on his campaign track record.  I think I've been pretty successful at that, but of course, I'll leave that up to others.

I accept your apology.  I would say that though I find your analysis deeply flawed, I do respect that you're making a serious argument that deserves to be engaged.

Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

[ Parent ]

• ##### It was a simple retraction not an apology(none)

I did not apologize. I only retracted my statement that you may be a troll, based on one decent comment that you made, despite my reservations on many other comments you made in this diary.

"I would say that though I find your analysis deeply flawed"

that's wondeful spin!

But, since this diary has become unreadable due to the formatting problem, let us "take it outside" and debate at length under a comment inside a diary of mine here.

See you there.

Neo

• ##### PS(none)
and though this may be news to you?  7000ish Kossacks don't get to choose the Democratic nominee (thank the gods).

Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

[ Parent ]

• Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.