Look who is at the top of the 2012 Positive Intensity Scores! LOL
9 posts - 4 voices- Started 2 years ago by Beach Baby
- Latest reply from Obot 50549535
- out of
- Rate this Topic here:
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Well if this holds up this next elections is going to be fun!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have a comment about this poll which I expect will bore everyone but me, but what the heck.
Most polls ping enough people that the error is about 3%. But when you take the difference between two results of your poll, as this one does, you make the error bigger -- about 5%. Then, if you restrict the result to a subset of people polled, as this one does, you increase the error further. How much this last step increases the error depends on how small a subset you use. But in this example, I'd estimate that the error on the Bachman result is about 6%, but the error on the Daniels result is more like 10% (because they used only 30% of the answers for him). So if you think about all that, you realize that this poll hasn't actually demonstrated that Bachman's number and Daniel's number are different, given the polling error.
To put this more briefly, if they did this poll twice they'd get two completely different lists.Posted 2 years ago # -
Yahoo! I am sure there are some more comments that will by flying out of his mouth way before the next election. They are going to need a new list soon LOL
Posted 2 years ago # -
Obot - appreciate your due diligence on the polling accurateness - but I am hoping that it holds true - just for the fun factor.
Posted 2 years ago # -
BB -- just to be even more of a stick in the mud -- far as I know Gallup hasn't demonstrated that there's any correlation between this statistic and likelihood of being nominated.
Posted 2 years ago # -
BB -- just to be even more of a stick in the mud -- far as I know Gallup
hasn't demonstrated that there's any correlation between this statistic
and likelihood of being nominated_____________________
Well....thank God for that
Posted 2 years ago # -
I know Obot - and none of them have fully committed to being in the race at all - just wishful thinking on my part. :-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
While I don't think Huckabee is a particularly good choice for the GOP, they could do worse. Although he's a gaffe-o-matic, my impressioin is that there's some real substance under there. That distinguishes him from the next four on this list, who are all to one degree or another empty suits. Any of them would be a disaster for the GOP -- but I don't think any of them, nor Huckabee, are likely to be nominated.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.