Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I hope Gore is our next President [update] (420 comments)

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.

    Sorry to hear your concession.

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

    by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 10:48:04 AM PDT

    [ 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 %

      7570 Total Votes
      ----------------

      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

        by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 11:50:44 AM PDT

        [ 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

    by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 01:34:45 PM PDT

    [ 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.

  •  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

    by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 11:51:52 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

  • Close

    Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site