That's what Rush Limbaugh argued - that they were skewing results so that they could show Kerry momentum in the future. I am saying that you need to find out what assumptions the pollster made about the population they are sampling to see if there is a systemic bias in the polling results. Right now you have a body of polls with the race as a dead heat and two polls consistently showing a Bush landslide. These two sets of polls are outside each other's margins of error - which means that there must be fundamental differences in statistical techniques between the two.
I wouldn't go into debating Marxism, but Gallop's CEO is a big Republican contributor. But the question is incentive, really. There are three goals a poll could have:
1. To get accurate information about what the population actually feels for the client's strategic analysis
2. To get biased information and publicize it in order to create a public perception about what the population feels
3. To directly impact public perception through leading questions and dissemination of information (accurate or inaccurate) in the poll itself (push-polling)
Zogby does 1, and there are a lot of people who want 1. That's why he can criticize gallop and still keep clients like the wall street journal and fox news. But others with less stellar reputations to preserve can get into 2. and 3. and make money off it.
The reason for Gallop's very high poll numbers for Bush was based on its bizarre assumptions on turnout. This is well documented in Zogby's critique of Gallop:
If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000
So Republicans are badly over-sampled and Democrats badly under-sampled, giving systematically biased results. Awful polling, but used to keep Republicans motivated and Democrats depressed.
Street value = $1.25. If you've ever been to a software market in a developing country you know everything is pirated. I have no idea what earthly purpose this donation serves besides operating as a tax write-off and a bit of good publicity.
What do you get when you integrate around Tanzania?
Nothing, there are no Poles in Tanzania.
What do you get when you integrate around Poland?
Nothing, there are Poles but they're removable....
I got nuthin'.
In fact I've never seen Scarface and the Scarface connections were obvious.
I do like this article being posted, however, just to read the 20+ sarcastic comments generated.
They would be more successful if they were better at bullying tribute than they were. Unfortunately, Imperial tribute system was reciprocal, and the fact that the tribute system actually cost the imperial government money was a major factor in closing China off from trade.
The history books are always slow to change. We know, for instance, that Basque fishermen fished the Grand Banks (off Newfoundland) for at least a hundred years before Columbus sailed. It was a well-kept secret, but it was often argued that Columbus' wife (who was Basque) let him in on the secret. The Viking settlement on Newfoundland lasted a long time, so there was never much of a hiatus in contact between Europe and North America.
Indications of trade with Asia on the West Coast of North America are long-standing - Chinese goods reached as far as Mexico.
If this presentation is true (and it would be interesting to see what he is actually presenting, as opposed to what is reported) it would be welcome just as a response to those historians who speculate, what would have happened if zheng he had not stopped at East Africa and gone on to Europe? Would we all be speaking Chinese? The answer would be nothing, and no (or not yet, anyway).
The difference between the two voyages of discovery was that for the Chinese, their motive was altruistic: to discover the world and share their civilization with others. For the Europeans, their motive was greed. The difference being, when discovery was starting to bankrupt the government in China it was first on the cutback list. Greed showed to be a more durable basis for exploration than altruism.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what Rush Limbaugh argued - that they were skewing results so that they could show Kerry momentum in the future. I am saying that you need to find out what assumptions the pollster made about the population they are sampling to see if there is a systemic bias in the polling results. Right now you have a body of polls with the race as a dead heat and two polls consistently showing a Bush landslide. These two sets of polls are outside each other's margins of error - which means that there must be fundamental differences in statistical techniques between the two.
I wouldn't go into debating Marxism, but Gallop's CEO is a big Republican contributor. But the question is incentive, really. There are three goals a poll could have: 1. To get accurate information about what the population actually feels for the client's strategic analysis 2. To get biased information and publicize it in order to create a public perception about what the population feels 3. To directly impact public perception through leading questions and dissemination of information (accurate or inaccurate) in the poll itself (push-polling) Zogby does 1, and there are a lot of people who want 1. That's why he can criticize gallop and still keep clients like the wall street journal and fox news. But others with less stellar reputations to preserve can get into 2. and 3. and make money off it.
The reason for Gallop's very high poll numbers for Bush was based on its bizarre assumptions on turnout. This is well documented in Zogby's critique of Gallop:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=859
Gallop assumes for that poll assumes that the turnout on election day will break down as follows:
Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)
However, as zogby noted:
If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000
So Republicans are badly over-sampled and Democrats badly under-sampled, giving systematically biased results. Awful polling, but used to keep Republicans motivated and Democrats depressed.
Sending emails are just as good, agree. Conservatives are somehow going to be any different, disagree.
I cried when I played Fallout:Brotherhood of Steel.
Street value = $1.25. If you've ever been to a software market in a developing country you know everything is pirated. I have no idea what earthly purpose this donation serves besides operating as a tax write-off and a bit of good publicity.
What do you get when you integrate around Tanzania? Nothing, there are no Poles in Tanzania. What do you get when you integrate around Poland? Nothing, there are Poles but they're removable. ...
I got nuthin'.
In fact I've never seen Scarface and the Scarface connections were obvious. I do like this article being posted, however, just to read the 20+ sarcastic comments generated.
This explains the sharp rise in carjackings, gun rampages, and drownings in shallow water we've seen recently.
Also, the hat he wears all the time is ridiculous.
That's true. Last I heard he was dressed up in tights and a cape fighting crime in Texas under that name.
You have to use fire or acid on trolls or else they regenerate.
Yes, there is - Burma!
Get back to work!
They would be more successful if they were better at bullying tribute than they were. Unfortunately, Imperial tribute system was reciprocal, and the fact that the tribute system actually cost the imperial government money was a major factor in closing China off from trade.
The history books are always slow to change. We know, for instance, that Basque fishermen fished the Grand Banks (off Newfoundland) for at least a hundred years before Columbus sailed. It was a well-kept secret, but it was often argued that Columbus' wife (who was Basque) let him in on the secret. The Viking settlement on Newfoundland lasted a long time, so there was never much of a hiatus in contact between Europe and North America. Indications of trade with Asia on the West Coast of North America are long-standing - Chinese goods reached as far as Mexico. If this presentation is true (and it would be interesting to see what he is actually presenting, as opposed to what is reported) it would be welcome just as a response to those historians who speculate, what would have happened if zheng he had not stopped at East Africa and gone on to Europe? Would we all be speaking Chinese? The answer would be nothing, and no (or not yet, anyway). The difference between the two voyages of discovery was that for the Chinese, their motive was altruistic: to discover the world and share their civilization with others. For the Europeans, their motive was greed. The difference being, when discovery was starting to bankrupt the government in China it was first on the cutback list. Greed showed to be a more durable basis for exploration than altruism.