TruthIsAll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-04 03:42 PM
Original message |
THE PROBABILITY IS ZERO: THANK YOU, BILL GATES, FOR GIVING US EXCEL. |
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-04 03:44 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I'm formatting your table now, Truth! |
|
I did some minor editing of the text for display on my site, but the table is a pain. Do you have it in tab-delimited format? PM me.
|
mulethree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-04 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-04-04 03:52 PM by mulethree
I was going to parse it for you, but when I copied it and pasted it to notepad and then opened that in OpenOffice spreadsheet, it appears to be tab delimited already.
So cut and paste to notepad and save and you'll have it tab-delimited.
|
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Because he switched to a monospace font and used spaces. Thanks for thinking of me, though. I opened the text in BBEdit and did some quick search and replace, and it works fine now!
|
efhmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-04 05:05 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Sure this is right but it only makes things worse in my mind since we |
|
do not heve the power to do anything about it.
|
robcon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-04 05:10 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I disagree with the hypothesis and thus the conclusions. |
|
1. Historically, exit polls have been much more accurate than standard polls."
Just the opposite is true. Almost every exit poll of the last 20 years has been far more inaccuate than the pre-election polls. The reason for that is probably the non-random nature of the interception of voters.
As a matter of fact the pre-election polls were very accurate this year.
|
efhmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-04 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Please show your data for the last 20 years. |
TruthIsAll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-05-04 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. He won't show any data because he has none. |
|
His curt, know-it-all manner, seemingly so self-assured, masks profound ignorance and/or cognitive dissonance on the subject.
|
TruthIsAll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-05-04 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. What a joke. Do you really believe you can get away with that? |
|
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 01:49 AM by TruthIsAll
Fact. Since 1952, TV networks have used exit polls to call elections. Fact. They were 99.999% accurate in their calls. Fact. Exit polls intially called Florida for Gore in 2000. Fact. They were correct. They just did not realize that 175,000 punched cards would be spoiled, the vast majority in minority democratic precincts. Fact. Exit polls are used all over the world to check for fraud. They are accurate to within 1%. Fact. You can do random sampling without a telephone.
Questions for you: What constitutes a random sample? Do you know how to calculate the Standard Deviation? Do you know how to calculate the Margin of Error? Are those polled ever unsure who they voted for? Can you document a single case where one has lied about who they voted for in an exit poll?
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-05-04 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. I know how to do all those things and more |
|
Edited on Sun Dec-05-04 02:02 AM by depakid
and the poster makes a point- exit polling isn't randomized and there are many ways for bias to enter the sample.
That doeasn't necessarily render them all innaccurate (and there's plenty of room for bias in pre-election polling, too).
It's just that with bias- the statistical measures are rendered less meaningful- and the probabilities that result are of suspect validity.
That, unfortunately, has been a problem with your analyses (which I have appreciated, btw) all along.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 07:09 AM
Response to Original message |