Random Politics & Religion #13

One of the reasons why I read The Nation is because of their book reviews believe it or not.

They will review a handful of books on a subject and therefore derive insights that are far greater than the disparate parts could ever achieve.

Case in point:

Mr. Bright Side: Trump’s Gospel of Positive Thinking
Donald Trump isn’t just a tireless doomsayer; he’s also an apostle of the upward-striving mantras of self-help.
Not a putdown of Trump but a reasoned look at the whys of his thought processes.

Reviewed:

Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again By Donald J. Trump

The Truth About Trump By Michael D’Antonio

Trump Revealed: An American Journey of Ambition, Ego, Money, and Power By Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher

The Making of Donald Trump By David Cay Johnston

The Gilded Rage: A Wild Ride Through Donald Trump’s America By Alexander Zaitchik

Paged!

Yeah, I'm sure you're going to get an unbiased book review when the cover looks like this:

You're arguing about a word you aren't understanding and don't want to understand. Oversampling is a method to increase accuracy on groups that would be underrepresented otherwise. There's nothing in that blurb to suggest an oversampling of Democrats (or any specific group for that matter) nor is there anything in the oversampling methodology that introduces skewing. Pile of big fat nothing.

To one extent Pleebo is right (miracles do happen) when it comes to oversampling as a statistical tool, but something is clearly wrong with the polling and Podesta's strange wording isn't doing him any favors. One example of this is the +9 party ID weight given to Democrats over Republicans in so many polls when most recent estimates don't even come close to that. Combine that with the very high Republican primary turnout and the low Democrat primary turnout and it makes even less sense to weight the polls on the high end for Dems.

I guess we'll see how accurate it is when the votes come in (they were fairly on the mark in 2012), but something reeks here.

Sorry, plumbing is backed up. We're having a guy look at it right now, but you're just going to have to wait.

ETA two weeks and change.

The leaked email was from 2008 by the way. If past polls are an indication then perhaps that strategy is acceptable.

do you any money you'd be willing to back up that statement with?

have*

I wouldn't trust people around here to pay their bets...ask Mosin.

Which part? The +9 skew is new, but the oversampling might not be. It still seems odd that Podesta would be involved with creating polling standards for major media outlets.

And oversampling can be adjusted to change results in whichever favor you want. I get what the term means.

You have to consider how they are determining when oversampling is needed and what metrics they are using to lean that way. How are they determining how many Democrats to sample and what are they doing to oversample to ensure that number is correct.


I understand the term but you need to understand that it can be used to manipulate a poll, whether it comes from not oversampling enough or not. You also need to understand the content of the email "Maximize what we get out", what are they trying to maximize?

In the example given of Black Americans, what if they wanted to represent black Americans less? Then they wouldn't over-sample to keep under-representing them. It can easily be used as a form of manipulation but of course there are a ton of different variables that need to be considered so they would wan to maximize their sample size to better benefit the results in their favor. Does that make sense? Or are you still going to look at it with fogged glasses?


As you mentioned the email is old though, so you are right in saying that this email is of little relevance.

I just listened to a blurb of Elizabeth Warren's recent speech. And here I thought Clinton's voice was irritating. She has nothing on Warren.

There's no fogged glasses on my part. Oversampling is not used to change polling results. It's a method used to reduce high error margins. Campaigns use polling to inform their strategies so naturally they would like to maximize what they get out of them by ensuring the information is as accurate as possible, which is what oversampling helps with. Of course, I don't know the specific context for that phrasing, but there's seriously nothing suspicious about that email.
Do we know who he's talking to? Because it would seem like routine campaigning to outsource polling and ask for something like oversampling of key demographics to get more reliable results.

LOL but I want to make some money!

The only seat I have available for Hillary:

And yes Hillary would endorse solar powered executions for the environment people !

If you are going to go by the chair this is the only way to go:

Damn it that is what I get for not watching the video before I post it lol

As I suspected, no balls whatsoever. Pity.

Fixed

I accept souls... and other things besides cash.

Uranium-235?

It is entertaining to watch Progressives aggressively campaign for Hillary Clinton who represents everything that they are against. Especially Warren who has made an entire career lambasting Wall St and ridiculing banks; watching her give her full-throated endorsement who has taken more money from banks than any candidate in History.

A woman that fought against gay rights her entire career for the first 65 years of her life is hailed as a civil rights champion by the left.

They are opposed to Citizens United yet Hillary has spent a billion dollars donated from the wealthiest of the wealthy. 70 million dollars of her campaign alone came from just 18 individuals, billionaires.

But the most amusing part of all to me is look at who has endorsed her. Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte, Colin Powel, and the George W Bush, all of the fathers of war in the Middle East, backing Hillary. The industrial war machine has stolen the Progessives' party right from under their noses. And to add icing to the cake, they literally co-opted hippies to become soldiers for their cause and to get them to aggressively attack people that oppose Hillary's pro-war interventionist policies and regime change.

Thats typical for Aman.

I wonder why RT is silent on a weeknight, then I remember that RT is still a thing, it's just iNvIsIbLe...

Democrats are wrong no matter what they do. I have an uncle who has a bumper sticker that reads "Annoy a Liberal". It's like they're not even trying to bridge gaps or walk a mile in the other shoes. They just attack.

And by the way, before anyone gets at me for being a hypocrite, I'm going to poison the well, here. I'm pro-2nd amendment. If anything, I'm more moderate than the all-hated liberal. I do see the reasoning behind it, but I cannot and will not accept because religion as a reason to eliminate rights.

I guess I don't see how that poisons the well. The way I see it, the more a person breaks rank with a party's views, the more their own views are legitimized. It shows that they're more likely to be free-thinking individuals who don't have to rely on politicians and media to make up their minds for them.


Errr... yeah, I can't side with you completely on this one. It takes a very big stretch to paint this as primarily a conservative problem.