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 #110: As I expected, your counter is very weak.. [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
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #106
110. As I expected, your counter is very weak..
Edited on Thu Aug-18-05 12:09 PM by TruthIsAll
You:
Yes, I am familiar with and have conducted sensitivity analysis. But of course the validity of the analysis can't be measured by the sheer number of scenarios tested. You could have run one scenario, or five million, and the force of the argument would be determined by the limiting case.

Me:
The number of scenarios reflect incremental changes to the assumptions. It does indeed increase the force of the argument.
You can't argue that any plausible scenarios were ignored.

You
I did not fall 4 million votes short, but you come to this conclusion by apparently failing to read my post #9 beyond the line labeled "Totals." Not that I am wedded to the assumptions in that post.

Me
But you do not dispute the fact that, contrary to your premature result, Kerry won the scenario. As he won all 120 scenarios.

You
As I explain elsewhere (at least twice), you cannot extract the marginals for reported 2000 vote and apply them to your estimates of actual 2000 vote. That is your faulty assumption.

Me
Sorry, you have never refuted the fact that Bush could not have received 43% of the 2004 vote. This is your Achilles heel and you know it.

You
I will let others tally the personal attacks as they will, but they have no bearing on the arguments regardless.

Me
Nevertheless, I have noticed a distinct change in your attitude.
Maybe its due to frustration on your part.
You never expected I would be so relentless, did you?

You
Since you have ducked the question twice: the E/M table reflects a design effect square root (multiplier) of approximately 1.5, at least if we can trust the "15" at lower left. Be advised, however, that these are described as "typical sampling errors" because the design effect varies from question to question. This is something you could actually read about.

Me
Then why is the MoE = 1.0% for 10,000 respondents?

You
You say I am assuming some desperate hypothetical. But false recall is demonstrated in many surveys, and I and others have provided the figures and the links, and you have ignored them. The "faith-based" and "Hail Mary" rhetoric is, well, rhetoric.

Me
I have yet to receive your response regarding that 2002 survey.
I asked you to document the purpose, advocates, executors, internals and results of the poll. You have shown us nothing. It was just a poll. The numbers were not in agreement with the actual 2000 vote.
I fail to see relevance nor any facts to substantiate your "false recall" hypothesis.

Is that the best you can do?
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