57% of Americans Support a Public Option

[NYcarbineer]

"Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result ." Doesn't use the word estimate does it?

Did you ever consider they were measuring the poll's range of deviation and other measures relating to accuracy? Oh, no, we just look at raw data and jump to a conclusion. Did you think they had the other measures there for decoration?

If you say Obama will win with a 7% margin plus or minus 4% and I say 6% with a range of 2%, my poll is more accurate. Not quite as close to the actual number, but very close with more precise polling. In polling, they count that as accuracy.

The guy used the wrong number, period. But thanks for proving my point about rightwingers.

Maybe you should back and read the .pdf, for starters.

I did my homework. I also understand what the chart was trying to tell us. I even explained it to you. Your lack of understanding of what poll accuracy means does not make you correct. At this point I'm going to stop arguing with an uninformed person.

Summary: Rasmussen and Pew were the most accurate.

The guy used the wrong number. NOTE: the report came out November 5th, the election was November 4th, they didn't even have the final number that's why he used a guess and it was over a point off. OBVIOUSLY if you use 6 instead of 7 it looks like the polls who said 6 had it right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The guy used the wrong number, period. But thanks for proving my point about rightwingers.

Maybe you should back and read the .pdf, for starters.

I did my homework. I also understand what the chart was trying to tell us. I even explained it to you. Your lack of understanding of what poll accuracy means does not make you correct. At this point I'm going to stop arguing with an uninformed person.

Summary: Rasmussen and Pew were the most accurate.

Only if you leave out the ones that neat them.
Sorry, saveliberty - I enjoy our respectful disagreements and even some agreement so I hope I don't sabotage that by just calling it flat out.
In the national - Rassmussen missed the spread by more than many pollsters and they missed actual percentages by more than CNN and Ipsos McClatchy.

Looking at the state polls shows a consistent and persistent over-reprentation of McCain support and under-representation of Obama support. I've looked myself - it was a little time consuming but the "lean" is unmistakable.

Saveliberty is pathetically full of shit. It is incomprehensible to me why so many rightwing nuts seem to be obsessed with not admitting they were wrong when the irrefutable facts are right in front of them.

Then again, I've always considered that a bonus. The pleasure of proving a rightwinger wrong, and the bonus of watching him flounder around trying to deny he's wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

The guy used the wrong number, period. But thanks for proving my point about rightwingers.

Maybe you should back and read the .pdf, for starters.

I did my homework. I also understand what the chart was trying to tell us. I even explained it to you. Your lack of understanding of what poll accuracy means does not make you correct. At this point I'm going to stop arguing with an uninformed person.

Summary: Rasmussen and Pew were the most accurate.

Only if you leave out the ones that neat them.
Sorry, saveliberty - I enjoy our respectful disagreements and even some agreement so I hope I don't sabotage that by just calling it flat out.
In the national - Rassmussen missed the spread by more than many pollsters and they missed actual percentages by more than CNN and Ipsos McClatchy.

Looking at the state polls shows a consistent and persistent over-reprentation of McCain support and under-representation of Obama support. I've looked myself - it was a little time consuming but the "lean" is unmistakable.

No apololgy needed nodoginnafight. I don't work that way. If you check post #112, you will see I am trying to explain accuracy (not who was closest to the final vote results) is measured by the estimated vote percentage AND the possible percentage plus or minus I could be off.

If I say the baseball game will be 7-2 in favor of the Yankees, with a possible point difference of plus or minus 6 runs for the Yankees, and the game is 7-2, am I more accurate than someone who says the game will be 6-2 for the Yankees with a one run plus or minus for the Yankees?

NYcarbineer, for you I'll just say look up measure of error. It is a technical term in polling dumbass. It is also the reason I'm right and you are uninformed.

 

[nodoginnafight]

and if the game is 12-6, you can't really claim you predicted the game better no matter how hard you try.
Like I said - not a statistics major in college - the two classes I took darn near killed me - so I'll leave you two to hash out the finer points. Slide rules at dawn?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is happening is this -- 30% of the American public is living in an alternate universe. The hard right wing simply cannot accept not only that they are wrong but that they were not right last year. The closest comparison in American history that I can find would be the reactionary wing of the Southern secessionists. They simply could not believe that they were wrong and that their cause would be subdued when it revolted against the constitutional, elected government.
.
To today's right wing -- you lost. You are not getting into power again, not next year, not any year.

The rest of country is aware that you are delusional. It is time for you to admit you are wrong, change, and be accepted once again into the rational American public.

 

[saveliberty]

What is happening is this -- 30% of the American public is living in an alternate universe. The hard right wing simply cannot accept not only that they are wrong but that they were not right last year. The closest comparison in American history that I can find would be the reactionary wing of the Southern secessionists. They simply could not believe that they were wrong and that their cause would be subdued when it revolted against the constitutional, elected government.
.
To today's right wing -- you lost. You are not getting into power again, not next year, not any year.

The rest of country is aware that you are delusional. It is time for you to admit you are wrong, change, and be accepted once again into the rational American public.

Conservative moderates are part of the right, so I'd say you are about 13 months from a major disappointment. Fiscal conservatism isn't a passing political idea, it is a necessity. We will also still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, have high unemployment and most of our current problems.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservtive moderates are not part of the far right delusional wing. Conservative moderates will not support the radical agenda of the far rightists. Did not happen last November. Will not happen next November. They have caught on that the toids are delusional and will not add to your 25 - 30% total.

You can stay in your world. America, however, will not go there.

 

[saveliberty]

Conservtive moderates are not part of the far right delusional wing. Conservative moderates will not support the radical agenda of the far rightists. Did not happen last November. Will not happen next November. They have caught on that the toids are delusional and will not add to your 25 - 30% total.

You can stay in your world. America, however, will not go there.

Is this the part where I agree with the obvious? Problem is JakeStarkey, you mention the "far right delusional wing", the post I commented on said, "right wing" BEFORE YOU EDITED THE POST. Just plain dishonest, forget the intellectual part.

 

[nodoginnafight]

My personal observation - Blue Dog Democrats have the most consistent record on fiscal conservatism imho.
Republican's SAY they've seen the light - but last time - they "lost" that light the instant THEY got THEIR hands on the checkbook. My subjective - but honest - observation is that they only seem to oppose big spending when it's the other guys who are deciding WHAT the spending is on.

My observation is that the far left would just as soon tax at 95% and use ALL the money to create their vision of a utopian society.

I think those who reflect moderate to ever so slightly progressive social views (rules out the extreme right imho) and fiscal conservatism (rules out the extreme left imho) stand a wonderful chance is gaining the public support they need to call the shots for quite some time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I did my homework. I also understand what the chart was trying to tell us. I even explained it to you. Your lack of understanding of what poll accuracy means does not make you correct. At this point I'm going to stop arguing with an uninformed person.

Summary: Rasmussen and Pew were the most accurate.

Only if you leave out the ones that neat them.
Sorry, saveliberty - I enjoy our respectful disagreements and even some agreement so I hope I don't sabotage that by just calling it flat out.
In the national - Rassmussen missed the spread by more than many pollsters and they missed actual percentages by more than CNN and Ipsos McClatchy.

Looking at the state polls shows a consistent and persistent over-reprentation of McCain support and under-representation of Obama support. I've looked myself - it was a little time consuming but the "lean" is unmistakable.

No apololgy needed nodoginnafight. I don't work that way. If you check post #112, you will see I am trying to explain accuracy (not who was closest to the final vote results) is measured by the estimated vote percentage AND the possible percentage plus or minus I could be off.

If I say the baseball game will be 7-2 in favor of the Yankees, with a possible point difference of plus or minus 6 runs for the Yankees, and the game is 7-2, am I more accurate than someone who says the game will be 6-2 for the Yankees with a one run plus or minus for the Yankees?

NYcarbineer, for you I'll just say look up measure of error. It is a technical term in polling dumbass. It is also the reason I'm right and you are uninformed.

1. Show me where the Fordham study used margin of error in its calculation.

2. Explain to me, in clear and concise language, why the Fordham study used a mythical 6.15 margin of victory in its calculation instead of the ACTUAL 7.3 margin.

 

[saveliberty]

Only if you leave out the ones that neat them.
Sorry, saveliberty - I enjoy our respectful disagreements and even some agreement so I hope I don't sabotage that by just calling it flat out.
In the national - Rassmussen missed the spread by more than many pollsters and they missed actual percentages by more than CNN and Ipsos McClatchy.

Looking at the state polls shows a consistent and persistent over-reprentation of McCain support and under-representation of Obama support. I've looked myself - it was a little time consuming but the "lean" is unmistakable.

No apololgy needed nodoginnafight. I don't work that way. If you check post #112, you will see I am trying to explain accuracy (not who was closest to the final vote results) is measured by the estimated vote percentage AND the possible percentage plus or minus I could be off.

If I say the baseball game will be 7-2 in favor of the Yankees, with a possible point difference of plus or minus 6 runs for the Yankees, and the game is 7-2, am I more accurate than someone who says the game will be 6-2 for the Yankees with a one run plus or minus for the Yankees?

NYcarbineer, for you I'll just say look up measure of error. It is a technical term in polling dumbass. It is also the reason I'm right and you are uninformed.

1. Show me where the Fordham study used margin of error in its calculation.

2. Explain to me, in clear and concise language, why the Fordham study used a mythical 6.15 margin of victory in its calculation instead of the ACTUAL 7.3 margin.

Let me get this straight. You want me to provide you with the research and explain it to you, but you refute my poll evidence without this knowledge? I don't presume to think for anyone, but myself. By the way, you finally have found the answer to the 20% Republican question (46%). Like you and other liberals are fond of saying, the election results say it all. Care to back away from that? I sure would if I were you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservtive moderates are not part of the far right delusional wing. Conservative moderates will not support the radical agenda of the far rightists. Did not happen last November. Will not happen next November. They have caught on that the toids are delusional and will not add to your 25 - 30% total.

You can stay in your world. America, however, will not go there.

Is this the part where I agree with the obvious? Problem is JakeStarkey, you mention the "far right delusional wing", the post I commented on said, "right wing" BEFORE YOU EDITED THE POST. Just plain dishonest, forget the intellectual part.

Not only are you delusional, you can't read and make sense of what you read. Two different 'right wings' exist: the conservative right wing and far right delusional wing. Conservative moderates don't buy your crap. That is why you lost last year.

Not only are you delusional, your reading and reasoning abilities are mediocre. No wonder the moderate conservatives are running from the SavedLibertys and ilk just as quickly as possible.

Stay on track, SL, stay with us, please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No apololgy needed nodoginnafight. I don't work that way. If you check post #112, you will see I am trying to explain accuracy (not who was closest to the final vote results) is measured by the estimated vote percentage AND the possible percentage plus or minus I could be off.

If I say the baseball game will be 7-2 in favor of the Yankees, with a possible point difference of plus or minus 6 runs for the Yankees, and the game is 7-2, am I more accurate than someone who says the game will be 6-2 for the Yankees with a one run plus or minus for the Yankees?

NYcarbineer, for you I'll just say look up measure of error. It is a technical term in polling dumbass. It is also the reason I'm right and you are uninformed.

1. Show me where the Fordham study used margin of error in its calculation.

2. Explain to me, in clear and concise language, why the Fordham study used a mythical 6.15 margin of victory in its calculation instead of the ACTUAL 7.3 margin.

Let me get this straight. You want me to provide you with the research and explain it to you, but you refute my poll evidence without this knowledge? I don't presume to think for anyone, but myself. By the way, you finally have found the answer to the 20% Republican question (46%). Like you and other liberals are fond of saying, the election results say it all. Care to back away from that? I sure would if I were you.

I based MY conclusion on the verbatim text of the .pdf sent out by the Fordham researcher.
All I want is for you to show me where that research used margin of error in its calculation in order to conclude that Rasmussen and Pew, who missed the number by 1.3, were closer than McClatchy, CNN, and Fox who missed the number by .3 (and that's not counting the polls who might have been at 8, which would have still been closer than Rasmussen and Pew.

btw, if you're certain that Pew is tied for most accurate pollster, you might be interested to know that they show the percent of self-identified Republicans currently at 23%. So by your own logic we can take THAT number as gold, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No apololgy needed nodoginnafight. I don't work that way. If you check post #112, you will see I am trying to explain accuracy (not who was closest to the final vote results) is measured by the estimated vote percentage AND the possible percentage plus or minus I could be off.

If I say the baseball game will be 7-2 in favor of the Yankees, with a possible point difference of plus or minus 6 runs for the Yankees, and the game is 7-2, am I more accurate than someone who says the game will be 6-2 for the Yankees with a one run plus or minus for the Yankees?

NYcarbineer, for you I'll just say look up measure of error. It is a technical term in polling dumbass. It is also the reason I'm right and you are uninformed.

1. Show me where the Fordham study used margin of error in its calculation.

2. Explain to me, in clear and concise language, why the Fordham study used a mythical 6.15 margin of victory in its calculation instead of the ACTUAL 7.3 margin.

Let me get this straight. You want me to provide you with the research and explain it to you, but you refute my poll evidence without this knowledge? I don't presume to think for anyone, but myself. By the way, you finally have found the answer to the 20% Republican question (46%). Like you and other liberals are fond of saying, the election results say it all. Care to back away from that? I sure would if I were you.

Oh, btw, how is it that ONE Rasmussen poll ALLEGEDLY most accurate would establish an overall superiority of accuracy in subsequent, unrelated polls. Can you answer that?

Rasmussen had the 2000 election George Bush over Al Gore by 9 points btw. Maybe we should look at ALL of Rasmussen's track record before we leap to any conclusions...

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I am being forced to go on Medicare next year, which I don't really want to do, but have no choice. I am also adamently opposed to Obamacare because my healthcare information is absolutley none of the government's business. Too bad I can't keep my private insurance!

How on earth are you "forced" to go on medicare? Just don't apply for it and buy your own private insurance since you're so anti-government. Geez louise. If it were up to you people there would BE no medicare and you would be up shite creek without a paddle, so what are you bitching about? Seriously. The hypocrisy is truly stifling sometimes.

 

[saveliberty]

NYcarbineer, someone on this thread brought up the most accurate Obama/McCain Presidential election poll. I did some looking and this is what I found.

You are not a dumbass. I was, and still am, frustrated by your comments about poll accuracy without understanding what that entails. I am further driven to derogatory comments when you look to me to fix it. You obviously don't want to agree with me, why is it my responsibility to spoon feed you?

I would appreciate a relationship like nodoginnafight has with me. We disagree frequently, but can still joke and reach some level of understanding and agreement at times. It is entirely up to you. The door is open.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Thanks saveliberty - I value our give and take as well.

 

[Misty]

I think the government has already proven it doesn't give a crap about what the American people think, they do what they want regardless.

 

[5079]

Most people -- including many of the pollsters -- don't know what a public option is. So who gives a fuck?

 

[saveliberty]

Most people -- including many of the pollsters -- don't know what a public option is. So who gives a fuck?

Well punk, there's Pelosi, Reid, Obama and most conservatives.

Public option = A government run health coverage plan predominately used by those unable to get insurance company based coverage due to cost or exclusion.

Commentary: The President and many Democratic Congressional members claim it will bring coverage to all with high quality and lower costs. Nancy Pelosi revealed today, she doesn't have the votes to pass a public option, but possibly a public option "trigger". The primary reason given was fear the public would not support Congressional members at election time.