Reply With Quote
Rabbit done dieded??
I dont think he is all whacked out on the , tbh, its not meth. Small doses of pure grade seems likely, and would explain his sometimes random outbursts, constant sniffle, red eye, etc.Cokeheads are usually overweight.
Just callin it like i see it.
Rabbit done dieded??
split WONDERFULLY along party lines, as the Repugs will eat any turd with orange cheetos on it.
fake news
and this moron bought it
If trump were a ST poster he would be Avante tbh
"A few pollsters are shameless about their herding. One of them is Public Policy Polling (PPP), a polling firm that conducts automated polls for both public consumption and for liberal and Democratic clients."
"I’m picking on PPP for a reason: They’re the biggest herders in the business."-Nate Silver
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-on-the-scale/
and this moron bought it
lol no idea what "herding" is
trash has no cred outside of his conned voters
PPP poll
He grabbed her by the pussy on election night.
So your contention is that they are to be completely dismissed? Not off by a couple of points, but thrown out complete becuzliberals
lol from your own original source:
http://m.dailykos.com/special/Methodology
So your contention is that they are to be completely dismissed? Not off by a couple of points, but thrown out complete becuz
lol from your own original source:
Their methodology is garbage.
lol from my own original source
"Cohn discoveredthat in 2012, the racial composition of PPP’s polls was correlated in an unusual way with President Obama’s performance among white voters in their surveys. If Obama was performing especially poorly among whites in one PPP poll, it tended to have a higher share of nonwhite voters, which boosted Obama’s result. And if Obama was doing relatively well among whites, PPP projected less nonwhite turnout, keeping his lead in check. As a result, PPP’s polls tended to show an unusually steady race between Obama and Mitt Romney."
B+ rating
R+0.2
also, lol conflating election polling methodology with opinion polls
Next time you want to call something fake news don't use a PPP poll to back your claim
"After examining PPP’s polls from 2012 and conducting a lengthy exchange with PPP’s director, I've found that PPP withheld controversial elements of its methodology, to the extent it even has one, and treated its data inconsistently. The racial composition of PPP’s surveys was informed by whether respondents voted for Obama or John McCain in 2008, even though it wasn’t stated in its methodology. PPP then deleted the question from detailed releases to avoid criticism. Throughout its seemingly successful run, PPP used amateurish weighting techniques that distorted its samples—embracing a unique, ad hoc philosophy that, time and time again, seemed to save PPP from producing outlying results. The end result is unscientific and unsettling."
"It’s troubling enough that PPP was using an undisclosed, poorly executed version of a controversial method based off of a deleted question to project the racial composition of the electorate. What’s even stranger is that PPP didn’t use it consistently."
"Reproducibility is at the heart of the scientific method: If I conduct an experiment and produce a certain result, and someone can’t do the same experiment and get the same outcome, there should be serious doubts about my finding. Incredibly, PPP’s methodology is so inconsistent that it’s not even clear it could replicate its own results with the same raw data. That should raise red flags."
"And it’s also possible that PPP would still be a decent pollster if it used a more defensible approach. But PPP’s opacity and flexibility goes too far. In employing amateurish weighting techniques, withholding controversial methodological details, or deleting questions to avoid scrutiny, the firm does not inspire trust. We need pollsters taking representative samples with a rigorous and dependable methodology. Unfortunately, that’s not PPP."
B+ rating
R+0.2
"And it’s also possible that PPP would still be a decent pollster if it used a more defensible approach. But PPP’s opacity and flexibility goes too far. In employing amateurish weighting techniques, withholding controversial methodological details, or deleting questions to avoid scrutiny, the firm does not inspire trust. We need pollsters taking representative samples with a rigorous and dependable methodology. Unfortunately, that’s not PPP."
I'm arguing they have methodology, which Nate Silver agrees with as he linked directly to Nate Cohn's article describing the severely flawed methods. Explain how this graphic supports your claim of PPP having a rigorous and dependable methodology.
538 grade
A letter grade from A+ to F that reflects a pollster’s Predictive Plus-Minus score. Firms banned by FiveThirtyEight are automatically given a grade of F.
Mean-reverted bias
A pollster’s historical average statistical bias toward Democratic or Republican candidates, reverted to a mean of zero based on the number of polls in the database.
still trusting polls after brexit and the election here
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
