Skip to main content

View Diary: Zogby Phone Poll - Hillary Leads Iowa and NH (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I believe the margin of error (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    oysterface, wandering i
    Hidden by:
    ChapiNation386

    is plus or minus, which means she might also have a larger lead than the poll actually states.

    But then you're smart enough to know that right... jackass?

    •  Any Statistician Will Tell You (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      cville townie
      Hidden by:
      AZnomad

      That if it's within the margin of error then it is a tie until the votes are counted.  It's good to know that you're so concerned about being honest though.

      TR'd for the ad hominem attack.

      Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

      by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:45:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  TR back at you. (2+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        oysterface, wandering i
        Hidden by:
        ChapiNation386

        Or was "noob" from someone else?

        And to cite honesty when making statements like this:

        First Off, This is a Zogby Poll (2+ / 0-)

        Therefore it is not valid.

        is the height of hypocrisy. Especially when you're actively supporting the very same poll's margin of error.

        But it's no doubt the product of your attitude of intellectual superiority, which comes through in your blunt condescension.

        I think, in the interest of honesty, you should simply admit that it's not the margin of error or the honesty of claiming a lead that bothers you, it's simply that you don't like the results.

        •  Merely Pointing Out That (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cville townie

          Since your premise is that the poll is valid you yourself are being intellectually dishonest for if you recognize the poll as valid then you must consequently recognize the polls margin of error as valid as well.  If you recognize the polls margin of error then you must consequently recognize that it shows a statistical tie.  If you recognize that it shows a statistical tie, then you must recognize that your diary title is intellectually dishonest.  If you are reality based, then you must correct this intellectual dishonesty.

          My "blunt condescension" so to speak comes from the knowledge that a margin of error lead is not a lead.  It is a tie.  You, on the other hand, have given my comment a retaliatory TR.  A practice barred by this websites FAQ.  In calling you a noob, I was being optimistic.  I'd rather think you ignorant of statistics than intentionally dishonest.

          I have consequently TR'd the above comment as well, your partisan invective, intentional intellectual dishonesty, and hateful ad hominem attacks leave little room for honest discourse.

          Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

          by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:26:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is common practice with journalists (0+ / 0-)

            and even the pollsters themselves, (who are statisticians by the way), to cite leads in headlines, regardless of whether or not they are within a margin of error. For instance, for this particular poll, the headline given by Zogby on his site is:

            Zogby Poll: Clinton Clings to Iowa Lead

            Or perhaps you prefer the headline of a poll by Rasmussen on their site?

            Election 2008: Clinton vs. Giuliani & Romney

            Clinton Leads Giuliani, Romney by Three Percentage Points

            (The above poll, by the way, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.)

            I think these statisticians cite leads, however slight, because they realize that margins of error can fall either way. They also get into the minutia of the data, sampling methods, etc., within the story, and simply site the raw outcome in the headline. So to claim that you possess the "knowledge" of what statisticians would tell me, especially when they're using the very same kinds of headlines you're deriding, is dishonest in itself and again demonstrates your blunt condescension.

            All additional poll information and data is available for review in this particular diary, by following the link that I included.

            And for your information, I did not claim the poll is valid, I merely posted the results. But your claim that it is invalid continues to go unsubstantiated. I wonder why? And who's making ad hominem attacks?

            I have consequently TR'd the above comment as well, your partisan invective, intentional intellectual dishonesty, and hateful ad hominem  attacks leave little room for honest discourse.

            That takes a lot of guts from someone who initiated this tete-a-tete by calling me a "noob". And your description of that name-calling as "optimistic" that I'm merely "ignorant" is a convenient, but poor, excuse for your troll-ratings abuse. Not to mention, another demonstration of your self-perceived intellectual superiority.

            •  The Media Exists to Make Money (0+ / 0-)

              Similarly, the pollsters know that the more controversial their poll findings the more likely their polls are to get picked up, used, and thus, make more money.

              I am glad that you acknowledge my intellectual superiority.  I am also glad that you acknowledge that your claim of a lead is dishonest.

              Thank you for doing so.  I expect you to change your headline shortly.

              As for me calling you a noob.  Get over yourself.  Really.  Would you have preferred it if I had called you an intellectually dishonest partisan schill and a liar?  Because that is the way you are acting.

              Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

              by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:14:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can't claim (0+ / 0-)

                intellectual superiority and a solid claim towards knowing what statisticians would say, and then attempt to belittle the motivations of the very statisticians you claim to speak for, when confronted with evidence that said statisticians are using the very type of headlines that were the genesis of your attack on me.

                That clearly lays bare the hypocrisy in your argument. And therefore, the headline will remain.

                And I acknowledged nothing, except that your "intellectual superiority" is self-perceived. Not to mention, it hasn't escaped me that your contention that Zogby polls are invalid continues to go unsubstantiated. I'm hardly surprised.

                And for someone who claims to want to participate in an honest discourse, acting like an infant and calling someone a "noob" is hardly the way to initiate it.

                And you can continue to call me anything you want. Name-calling is what you started with, and I guess it's all you've got left.

                This is one guy who's leaving the sandbox.

                •  Actually, I Can Do Such a Thing (0+ / 0-)

                  Some of us :whistles innocently: have talked with them in private.  Others :whistles innocently again: have managed to stay awake through research methodology courses.  And still others of us :whistles innocently for a third time: have been on this site regularly enough to know that citing a Zogby poll -- any Zogby poll -- is like claiming that Ron Paul would make a good President.

                  But of course you, in your infinite wisdom, have apparently done none of those things.  You can instead hide behind voluntary ignorance and partisan schilling.  Have a pleasant day.

                  Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

                  by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:38:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You know that when the evidence for your (0+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hidden by:
                    ChapiNation386

                    argument has been reduced to citing private conversations, managing to stay awake in class, (as if you're the only one who ever went to college), and blogging on a political site, (of which I've been a participating member for years), as proof of invalidating the work of professional pollsters, you've clearly lost all sense of credibility.

                    Not that you hadn't already...

                    Speaking of Poll Spinning (5+ / 0-)

                    There was a diary up here the other day claiming that Zogby showed a lead for Senator Clinton when she was within the margin of error.

                    The diarist TR'd me when I pointed this out.

                    Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

                    by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:29:17 AM PST

                    I think we both know that's being dishonest in the extreme, especially for someone who claims to hold the moral high ground on honesty. Your troll rating was in response to your own TR abuse, and something I had initially refrained from in response to your earlier infantile name-calling. It certainly wasn't because you "pointed something out".

                    But whatever makes you feel better. You obviously need some form of validation, which is a trait you share with most toddlers.

                    •  You Admit a Retaliatory TR (0+ / 0-)

                      You are aware that said practice is explicitly barred by the FAQ, correct?

                      And in addition, you TR'd me for pointing out that your spin was bullshit.

                      So really, no matter which way we come at it, you unjustly TR'd me.  The difference is that one is a bannable offense, the other is merely a serious breach of TU ethics.  Therefore, I still hold the moral high ground.  I know it makes your head spin, but honest principled people have nothing to fear from dishonest individuals like you.

                      As for your pathetic latching on to me pointing out the college bit.  I don't know if you have a college education or not.  I do know that if you do have one, your research methodology Prof would be embarrassed by your profound lack of understanding of the concept of a statistical tie due to a margin of error.

                      That you think I lack credibility is a real laugh, and again I am forced to TR you for an unwarranted ad hominem attack.

                      Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

                      by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:43:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  As I clearly stated, but as you obviously don't (0+ / 0-)

                        understand. My troll rating was in response to your ratings abuse, which is itself a bannable offense, and your initial unprovoked name-calling, both of which I see that you are continuing. But you justify it however you like, I guess when your arguments break down, that's all you have left. You're obviously just pissed that I called you out.

                        You might want to read this:

                        Troll Rating multiple posts by the same poster -- that is, preemptive multiple troll-rating strikes -- is not the intended use. Rate individual posts individually, don't just go down a thread knocking off troll ratings to a particular poster because of one or two comments that pissed you off. It is entirely possible for a valued site contributor to have, on one particular issue, an opinion that drives you absolutely nuts. Well, they're entitled, as long as the conversation stays remotely civil.

                        Regardless, your attempts to change the subject are duly noted. You're still faced with the fact that the very statisticians you used to support your argument use the same headlines that were at the very foundation of your initial attack. Not to mention that you've been unable to provide any concise, coherent proof that Zogby polls are invalid.

                        And it's amusing when you falsely conclude that, "I don't understand the concept of a statistical tie" in relation to a mere headline I placed on a diary, especially when professional pollsters themselves use the same headlines to claim leads in races that are within the margins of error of their own polls.

                        Not to mention that you seem to think you've become a mind reader now, with the extraordinary ability to pinpoint the motivations behind my TR, without proof, after being caught spreading that false claim in another diary, which in itself is a troll-worthy offense.

                        And you call yourself credible. Meh.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Media (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Elections (27)
  • Civil Rights (27)
  • Culture (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Republicans (19)
  • Climate Change (18)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site