Dean Leads. Supporters Must Not Alienate with Deceptive Info. A NY Plea.

[WiseMen]

I hate that I feel the need to make this post. But, Dean supporters are really alienating others by a pattern of flatly denying the obvious conclusions of factual reports. If Dean is the nominee, you will want all of our support. This is a plea for truthfulness and accuracy in our use of published data in reasonable argumentation.

A specific case in point is an apparent campaign of denial regarding poll results which indicate that Dean shows most poorly in head-to-head voter preference against George Bush.

Every imaginable rationalization has been put forward on Dean’s behalf. But, the most disturbing are the PATENTLY ERRONEOUS ones which attempt to dismiss the objective basis of the “Dean is not electable” critique by repeatedly stating falsely that a poll is bogus. An example below:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=24091&mesg_id=49118&page=


"The margin of error in this poll for Democratic primary voters is larger than the overall margin of error for the total sample: there were 244 registered voters who said they would vote in the Democratic primary in this survey."

THIS POLL IS BUSTED. YOU CANNOT HAVE AN ACCURATE SURVEY WITH ONLY 244 RESPONDENTS. CBS SAYS THAT THEMSELVES.

This poll has been getting reposted by the same people every day since it appeared. Every time the screwed up data gets pointed out and the thread immediately dies, but later in the day a new thread is posted to fool people.

This poll will be skewed the 25 or 67th time it's reposted. It's still busted when reposted. SO STOP REPOSTING IT!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

Now here is a Dean supporter who takes a quote from CBS and uses it repeatedly, out of context, to ERRONEOUSLY refute the fundamental conclusion that “If the election were held today and the candidates were Bush, the Republican and Dean, the Democrat, 55% of voters say they would vote for Bush, while 35% say they would cast their vote for Dean.” That is: Dean looses to Bush by 20% while an unnamed Dem looses by only 9%. After all the Media boosting of Dean he still fares worse that “unnamed.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/opinion/polls/main590018.shtml

This result is based on the FULL SAMPLE of 799 adults interviewed. The Dean supporters repeated posts are simply false.

The fact is, varied polls and focus groups results have pointed to same conclusion: Dean may win the primaries, but he does not have the precieved credentials and characteristics to win the GE against Bush.

In the CBS poll, the large margin of error only applies to results re. primary candidate choice from the 244 democratic voters.

Please refer to article footnote:



This CBS News Poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 799 adults interviewed by telephone December 21-22, 2003. 685 registered voters and 244 Democratic Primary Voters were interviewed. The margin of error due to sampling could be plus or minus four percentage points for results based on the entire sample. The error for registered voters could be plus or minus four points, and for Democratic primary voters it could be plus or minus six points.


© MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Either the poster does not understand survey methodology OR he feels that since Dean is winning it doesn't matter that one constantly (11 times) spreads false information, apparently in support of his campaign. Is winning all that matters?

I respectfully asks this person to look up the data and retract his constant posts on this matter.


Unfortunately, this shading of the facts is not an exception, but very much the rule in reponse to posts regrading negative polls results, campaign gaffs, or charges of inaccurate Dean statements or campaign literature.

I ask that all of us be more carefull in the use of information so as not alienate one another from the whole political process and discredit our Internet activist movement.

Again. I will be supporting Dean if he wins the nomination and I want to have some pride in our campaign.

[Padraig18]

1. Nice flame bait.

:eyes:

[windansea]

3. not flame bait at all

he is simply pointing out how many posters erroneously try to discount the CBS poll...

[Padraig18]

6. Try seeing the argumentative TONE, why don't you?

THAT'S why it's flame bait. I could give a rip about his 'logic'...

[windansea]

9. which tone?

I read it as a plea to keep things honest...and I was in every one of those threads about the CBS poll where posters erroneously tried to debunk it...with BS or poor understanding of the stated methodology

[Padraig18]

19. It starts here:

"...Dean supporters are really alienating others by a pattern of flatly denying the obvious conclusions of factual reports...."

if that's not calling us all a group of wackos and liars, what is it? :eyes;

[windansea]

23. obviously he didn't use

inflammatory words like wackos and liers

take a look at the CBS poll threads...a lot of people tried to debunk the results with inacurate statements

I would say wisemen was very restrained in how he said it

[Padraig18]

27. I disagree.

He was not restrained at all. It;s poorly disguised flame bait--VERY poorly disguised.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. Don't go for the bait.

[Melinda]

2. I personally think some of us have a poll up our asses.

But that's just me. :eyes:

[windansea]

4. thanks wisemen

good to see somebody is reading the fine print and sticking up for truth

:thumbsup:

[Scott Lee]

5. "Wisemen", I hate to break it to you...

But Howard Dean? He's gonna be the nominee. He's got the popular support, the money, the nonstoppable fundraising ability, the endorsements, the momentum and the energy.

Despite the never ending attacks against him, he just...keeps....going, like the energizer bunny.

No amount of statistical debates, numbers manipulation or incessant attempts to derail notation of the obvious will shrink these facts one iota. So if you like, go ahead and log as many empty arguments as you want to. Bold every other line....knock yourself out. But at the end of the day, you know what you're still going to be left with?

Howard Dean is going to be the democratic nominee, and very likely the next president of the United States.

[windansea]

8. you are in for a big surprise

:evilgrin:

[Hawkeye-X]

10. And Kerry once again..

Raised exactly how much?? and how much did he loan himself to his campaign???

[Scott Lee]

11. I could be. Dean might win by a lot greater margin than I thought.

[goobergunch]

12. Which state is Kerry going to win?

I can't think of any offhand.

[Scott Lee]

16. the state of denial.

[goobergunch]

18. But Egypt isn't in the U.S.!

:evilgrin: ;)

[windansea]

21. heh heh

newsflash...the surprise won't be Kerry..but he will have a lot to do with it

:evilgrin:

[virtualobserver]

40. is he going to endorse Clark? n/t

[MaggieSwanson]

17. "Never-ending attacks (on Dean)"

originate in response to Dean's spins on truth. His less-than-candid-with-voters/media approach makes me ill.

[goobergunch]

7. Dean leads in the Delegate Count

I can back up every digit in my sig with names if necessary.

[WiseMen]

14. Dean Lead In most indications re. Nomination. Don't Blow It with Trashy

argumentation and false arguments.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I don't think you are the best person to make this appeal

I found your prior Thread topic "Dean will not get the Nomination. Let’s Adjust to That Likely Outcome" to be highly provocative at the best, and inflammatory at worse. I would say that the wording of your plea here:

"I hate that I feel the need to make this post. But, Dean supporters are really alienating others by a pattern of flatly denying the obvious conclusions of factual reports."

is a direct contradiction of the stance you took with your "Likely Outcome" thread. It is not a "likely outcome" that Dean won't get the nomination. That statement flies in the face of many objective facts. Dean is ahead of, or statistically tied with, all other Democrats in virtually if not all National polls. Dean is winning in most State polls. Dean has raised the most money of all the Democrats. Dean has the most active supporters of all the Democrats. Dean has the most Convention delegates pledged to him of all the Democratic candidates. Dean has as much or more Union support than any of the other Democratic Candidates. Dean has won arguably the most influential single endorsement made so far, that of Gore.

I hate that I feel the need to make this point. But, you are really alienating Dean supporters by a pattern of flatly denying the obvious conclusions of factual reports.

I back Clark personally. I feel that Clark has a realistic chance of winning, and I think Clark would be the best candidate our party can nominate in the Fall. But I don't ignore objective facts that show that Dean is still favored to win. You made some good points on your other thread but you buried them with your overkill and lack of fairness in my opinion. So it is difficult if not impossible for you to be taken seriously arguing for fairness and objectivity in this thread. All in my opinion of course.

[WiseMen]

20. I did not inject any false use of data, but a controversial interpretation

of existing "intelligence" and insight. My post is counter-intuitive
based on analysis. NOT counter-factual, based on erroneous manipulation of the public record.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I said you had some good points

but that you buried them via your presentation. I still believe that. Presentation always matters. That's why candidates have to be careful about not only what they say, but how and why they say it. The manner of presentation, not just the "facts" relayed, reflects the probable motivation of the speaker. And that speaks directly to perceived integrity and credibility. We all have to be careful of how our thoughts and feelings are likely to be taken by others on the receiving end; Clark supporters, Dean supporters, Kerry supporters, all of us.

[Padraig18]

22. Thank you, Tom

A voice of reason and logic is always welcome, regardless of which candidate you support. :hi:

[ozone_man]

30. Exactly. If he is sure that Dean won't get the nomination,

I'm not sure that I trust his arguments.

Anyway, regarding the Bush vs. candidate results so far, this CBS poll has very few samples (244), but more importantly, it is early and Bush is riding his war popularity as the fear factor is being played up by the right wing.

As the general election campaign gets underway, Dean will bring the focus back to domestic issues and attack Bush for his failures at home. People vote with their pocket books. This was no more apparent then in 1992, when Bush I had enormous popularity after the Gulf war, which fizzled, as people realized the economic plight that they were in.

Here is another thread to show how unelectable Bush's opponent was.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=49037

[Cheswick2.0]

15. One of these days my eyes are going to roll so far back in my head

they will get stuck :eyes:

[mouse7]

26. The CBS survey methodology is CRAP!

You cannot come up with an accurate survey with so few responses. The CBS poll HAS A DISCLAIMER in the text of the poll itself. And that CBS poll was THE ONLY poll that week with numbers remotely like that.

Therefore...
1) Very few responses
2) The only national survey in that time period remotely showing results like that.
3) CBS ITSELF SAYS THE POLL IS EASILY SKEWED!

MEANS...

THE CBS POLL IS SKEWED!

The number of responses in the rest of the poll is meaningless. There's only half the national average of Dean respondents in the poll. That result in a Stats class means you toss the results and start over or you flunk. Don't EVEN try to establish conclusions about the general population when you already have a sub group of the population proven flawed by the data.

[lurk_no_more]

28. Your asking for truth? from supporters of a candidate that doesn't

believe it matters? Your expectations are higher than mine.



Food for thought from….“JAFO”

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Now wasn't that helpful? You have a right to your opinion. n/t

[HFishbine]

44. Question

Funny little graphic there, but don't you think Bush's answer might be more along the lines of "I've been Commander and Chief of the entire American Armed services for the past three and a half years?"

[mkultra]

29. Clinton wasn't electable

I would like to point out that the election hasn't begun yet and most swing voters don't even know who Howard dean is. This is the way all elections happen. Deans numbers pre election are a good showing for someone that is unknown among swing voters.

I would also like to point out that Clinton was considered unelectable. He was battered badly in the primaries with integrity issues and his poll numbers against Bush Sr. where crappy. This was of course on the heals of a successful and quick war to defend Kuwait against Saddam Hussein which had the support of the UN.

please refer to the following article from 1992 which discusses just how unelectable Clinton was considered.

http://www.worldandi.com/public/1992/june/cr6.cfm

rational enough for ya?

[WiseMen]

34. I have met Bill Clinton. Dr. Dean is No Bill Clinton. Yet, Perot Helped

William Jefferson Clinton was perhaps the most intelligent President of the United States.

Clinton has an enormous grasp of national policy issues, domestic and foreign. He is one of the most personally persuasive man I have
ever met. An indomitable campaigner. Yet, if it was not for the energetic attack on Bush I by Ross Perot and the Perot effect on voting dynamics, Clinton would likely have lost the 1992 election.

That's just my opinion.

[patricia92243]

32. Candidate that is not even known by the majority of people

vs. a sitting president shod readily


President 90%
Candidate 10%


If a sitting president is not waaaay
ahead of an unknown - the sitting president is in BIG TROUBLE!

[WiseMen]

36. This is counter to belief in POWER OF INCUMBENCY in campaigns. New Data?

Note situation when Gore was the “incumbent.”

Notice below, that at same time in Dec. 1999, both major republican opposition candidates polled ahead of the incumbent Gore. This advantage is usually necessary for the outside party to overcome the power of incumbency.

Registered Voters' Choice in 2000
Bush 55%
Gore 42
Sampling error: +/-4% pts
Registered Voters' Choice in 2000
McCain 52%
Gore 44
Sampling error: +/-4% pts

[mouse7]

37. Nobody knows Dean and Dumbya lead is not commanding

The last batch of polls had Dumbya at 49% and Dean and Clark together in the low 40s.

Dumbya 49% Clark 42%
Dumbya 49% Dean 41%

[Padraig18]

39. Link?

:shrug:

[Democrats unite]

50. Now you want a link?

eom

[HFishbine]

45. Link?

Source?

[dsc]

47. Gore wasn't the incumbent

and if you don't believe there is a difference between VP and Pres, go out on the street and ask who the VP is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. Thanks for the input!

[nomaco-10]

35. You are the "Alienator" here...

and have been for weeks. You post sporadically with your official links and your somehow "familiar" flowery style of writing, but your intent is clear, and that is to inflame and divide.
I have been very mindful to not flame or bash the candidates of others here because I know that no matter who the candidate is, we all share one common goal. There's been enough burning bridges here at du and we need to come together on some level and unite before the rift and divide becomes a gap too large to cross with our fellow duers and form a strong union for the upcoming election, and make no mistake, we will need to forge a strong front if we are to unseat bush* in 2004.
The willful and expressed desire of some here at du to undermine and sabotage a good dem candidate for the sole purpose of advancing their own, is just not acceptable anymore, no matter how "eloquently" and well written it is. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf and you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse no matter how you turn the phrase.

Happy new year to us all.

[Padraig18]

38. Happy New Year to you, nomaco-10!

I couldn't have expressed it so well, had I tried. :hi:

[edzontar]

41. Thank you for your eloquence.

More than this piece of flamebait deserves.

[Rose Siding]

51. But necessary, it appears.

I understand civility but I must not understand the board rules at all :shrug:

[Hoppin_Mad]

42. I thought he was "The Instigator" Happy 04 to my fellow Dean Supporters

and to all other Dems who are supporting their candidate without resorting to bashing the other candidates ( except Lieberman - bash him all you want ! ).

I myself will try harder to not bash the other candidates ( except Joe )

[WiseMen]

46. Thank You for Thoughful comment. Vigorous, intelligent debate is great.

Cheers nomaco-10. Thank you for your thoughfull post. I wrote my
post because I don't want to just "flame" at what I was seeing as a pattern of "flipancy" regarding the use of facts and logic in our inter-Party debate.

As you know I strongly believe in vigorous debate at this point of the primary process. See my post here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=23502&mesg_id=23502


This present New Year post was in response to what I saw as an almost endlessly repetitive and arrogantly stated posting of an error by a Dean supporter. I have seen a pattern of repeatedly posting statements which "shade" the truth to the Dean campaign purposes and I honestly think that is not the best think for the overwhelmingly dominant campaign to do.

Joy of the season to you and yours.

[HFishbine]

43. What Pattern?

You lead in with a premise of a "pattern" of denial, then go to great effort to illustrate such a pattern using ONE post and a SINGLE poll.

Get back to us when you got something worth talking about.

[mzmolly]

48. Man I hate to kick this thread, but it's a gas....

LOL :+ Wisemen your such a card ...

I hate that I feel the need to make this post. But, Dean supporters are really alienating others by a pattern of flatly denying the obvious conclusions of factual reports. If Dean is the nominee, you will want all of our support. This is a plea for truthfulness and accuracy in our use of published data in reasonable argumentation.

Thanks I needed a good chuckle :hi:

[dsc]

49. Nexttime you call out someone for not quoting completely

try not doing the same thing. He is the full, unadulterated quote.

This CBS News Poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 799 adults interviewed by telephone December 21-22, 2003. 685 registered voters and 244 Democratic Primary Voters were interviewed. The margin of error due to sampling could be plus or minus four percentage points for results based on the entire sample. The error for registered voters could be plus or minus four points, and for Democratic primary voters it could be plus or minus six points.

This doesn't say that 799 adults gave answers for the poll. It says 685 were. Again, try not doing what you accuse others of.

VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004
(Among registered voters)
Bush
55%
Dean
35%

Note the figure is registered voters. Not people. The interviewed 685 registered voters not 799.

[Raya]

52. Good note. But his point was the MOE is + - 4%. Result Not Bogus as Dean

supporter was saying. And I saw that charge all over the place.

With a 20% gap a 4% margin of error cannot be used to dismiss the poll the way the Dean supporter was doing over, and over, and over ......

I saw the same pattern with the Dean attack agains Kerry using bad vote data. Some Dean supporter kept posting questionable excuse, over, and over, and over ....

I understand the emotion. I am pretty pissed at Dean.
But you are the guys with all the support and the money. Give the rest of us a break.

[Moderator]

53. Locking

This thread calls out a member of DU. Also, please be aware of the following rules for starting a thread in GD:

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

....

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.