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

Reply #31: MY lack of substantive response? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. MY lack of substantive response?
Gee, it seems to me that if your argument blows itself up at point #2, there's really no need to point out the holes in the rest. But if you want to claim lots of stuff at the wall and claim that some of it stuck, hey, say what you will.

On the topic of 2006, maybe you need to go slug it out with Skinner:
This analysis is an embarrassment.

To those of you who keep demanding to see the problem, here it is:

The problem is not in the mathematics (although I have not checked the math, so it's possible that there are errors there, too). The problem is in the assumptions he used before he even started.

TIA assumes that the "generic poll" should match the recorded votes. This is, quite simply, WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Does everyone here know what the "generic poll" is? The generic poll (usually referred to as the "generic congressional ballot") asks respondents which political party they support in the upcoming congressional election -- but it does not provide any names of any candidates. The generic congressional ballot is not -- and was never intended to be -- an accurate prediction of how people will vote. The point of the generic congressional ballot is to get a general sense of the mood of the voters.

Think, people. THINK....

Bottom line:

You can do the best, most accurate, most awesome mathematics in the history of the world, but if you start with completely false assumptions, your "analysis" is going to be worthless.

ON EDIT: If you want to see how the outcome compares to the pre-election polls, you need to look at the pre-election polls that list candidates by name from each and every congressional district. Someone mentione up-thread that this is precisely what folks like Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg did before the election, and their predictions were quite accurate.

Pretty smart guy, Skinner. I'd have worded some of this differently, but the bottom line is that the evidence from both generic and contest-specific polls supports his view and not yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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