You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #51: (Febble assumes a stern glare) [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. (Febble assumes a stern glare)
Look, I don't care who started it, it's got to stop. There is work to be done.

There is nothing wrong with the sample size of either the exit poll or political scientists. It was a joke (what is wrong with both samples is that they aren't random; although that matters less for the political scientist sample if you argue that papers written are the relevant dependent measure. Whatever. As I said, it was a joke.)

And seeing as we seem to have a complete sense of humour failure around here (my own was short-circuted at the OP) let's get on with the job on another thread.

I will make one serious point before I leave:

If we on DU are serious about convincing people who are presently unconvinced that the American election system is insecure and unjust, then we need to be rigorous about our arguments. It is easy to preach to the converted. It is far harder to preach to the unconverted, and when the unconverted include what market researchers like to call "opinion formers", and when the relevant opinion formers include public opinion professionals and political scientists (the two professions whose opinion is likely to be the most relevant to an assessment of the probity of an election) then we need to get our arguments and facts straight.

So (and this is the same serious point) when a representative of one of those professions (one who, as you point out, is not only a political scientist but an author of a text book on public opinion research) tells us that his colleagues are, by and large, unconvinced by arguments that the election was stolen, then it is sensible to ask ourselves not "is that true" but "why?". And one answer, I submit, is that we (I speak collectively) are sometimes less than rigorous about weeding out the crap arguments from the good.

So let's quit fighting and start weeding. And if we find ourselves in irreconcilable disagreement about what constitutes a weed, let's agree to differ, and leave the mods to deal with the trolls. Neither OTOH nor I are trolls, moles or anything other than ruthless gardeners.

Peace. Or you are grounded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC