From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Suburbs swing to Clinton in Time magazine poll
Organization: ILS
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:47:36 GMT

In article <1918@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> 
> That still does not explain why they failed to notify us of the built in
> biases of these counties. They said they were key but never explained
> why they thought they were key right ? 

Well buy the Time magazine and find out.  I am pretty certain that all
these counties went for Bush in '88, certainly all the states did.  Also
that article makes clear that the counties were selected from both Clinton
and Bush campaign data.  If their is a bias in these counies towards the
Democrats the Bush people will know about this and probably say something
about it, don;t you think.


>  Anyway Im not directly criticising this poll. I will quote myself from above.
>  "I was referring to all the other polls which do not mention how the poll data
>   was taken."
>      Can you read this a second time. I was referring to OTHER national POLLS
>     that MIGHT be using KEY counties and NOT TELLING us about it.


Once again Stevie if you think that MAYBE these POLLS are biased then you
should contact the poll takers and take a look at their data.


> Only the fact that this polling method has probably (?) been used in many
> other polls. They obvoiusly dont have the resources to call people in every
> county in the US.

Stevie, it is very clear that you know zero about statistics and poll
taking.  So I won't go into Random sampeling,  


> 
> ->Stevie,  do you really think that Time Magazine would willfully conduct a
> ->bad poll,  for what purpose?  If the election is close, or if Bush is
> ->winning and Time magazine knows about it yet continues to fudge the data to
> ->make it look as if Clinton were winning,  what would happen to the
> ->crdiability, the sales and the advertising of Time after the election?
> 
>  Sorry pal, I will never purchase another TIME magazine as long as I
> live. It has to due with their admitted total lack of OBJECTIVITY in
> dealing with environmental issues. Also, I have watched interviews with
> TIME reporters on CSPAN. The reporter basically admitted that time is
> pro CLINTON and demonstrates it quite often. I posted quotes from this
> interview here before. They have obviously decided to carve out a niche
> market. I am not part of that niche.
> 

Stevie, you might find this a surprise but these polls are conducted by
outside corporations that make there living doing polling data,  the way
that a poll is taken and the way that data is assested is part of an
advanced science called STATISTICS that you clearly have never heard of. 
Those numbers,  like margin of error,  are generated through scientifically
valid formulas.



> ->The ultimate test of a poll is repeatability,  and as long as the poll data
> ->from different poll taking companies gives you the same information;  Bush
> ->is very unpopular,  you will have a hard time proving otherwise until
> ->someone else confirms
> ->you.
>  
>  The poll data has been varying quite drastically lately. Some polls say
> 16 point Clinton lead, others say 10 point Clinton lead and another stated
> 6 point Clinton lead and just recently one stated 5 point Clinton lead.
> I dont have the time to analyze the poll data. I have offered to partake
> in a random poll here previously. What I have noticed is that after the
> BRILLIANT republican convention, the poll data has drastically varied.
>  WHY ?


O.K STEVIE,  I'M GOING TO TRY THIS REAL SLOW AND IN BIG LETTERS AND SMALL
WORDS.  FIRST WHEN YOU GENERALIZE FROM A RANDOM SAMPLE GROUP TO THE GENERAL
POPULATION THERE IS A MARGIN OF ERROR THAT IS A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF
YOUR SAMPLE SET.  IN STEVIE TERMS YOU PICK NAMES OUT OF A HATE,  YOU ASK
THESE PEOPLE THAT YOU PICK OUT OF THE HAT SOME QUESTIONS AND YOU THEN SAY
ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE HAT ARE LIKE THIS.  NOW THE MORE PEOPLE YOPU PULL OUT
OF THE HAT THE MORE CERTAIN YOU ARE THAT WHAT YOUR SAMPLE TELLS YOU IS WHAT
IT IS LIKE IN THE HAT AS A WHOLE.  THIS WE CALL SAMPELING.

NPW STEVIE,  EVEY POLL, WHICH IS A SAMPLE HAS A SAMPLELING ERROR,  SO SAY I
TOOK A POOL OF YOUR BRAIN CELLS AND CONCLUDED THAT 93% OF THEM ARE DEAD. 
IF I HAVE A SAMPALING ERROR OF 3% THAT MEANS THAT I AM PRETTY CERTAIN THAT
89% TO 97% OF YOU BRAIN CELLS ARE IN FACT DEAD.  AND THAT IT IS VERY VERY
UNLIKELY THAT 33% OF THEM ARE.

NOW THESE POLLS HAVE AN ERROR MARGIN OF 3 TO 4%.  SO A 16% POLL SAYS THAT
THE POLL TAKERS ARE VERY CERTAIN THAT CLINTON IS LEADING BY ANYWHERE FROM
13% TO 19%.  A 10% POLL IS VERY CERTAIN THAT CLINTON IS WINNING BY 13% TO
7%.  SO CLINTON COULD IN FACT BE WINNING BY 13% AND BOTH POLLS ARE CORRECT.

THE 6% POLL THAT YOU MENTION IS A TIME POLL IN WHICH "LIKELY VOTERS" RATHER
THEN "REGISTERED VOTERS" WERE POLLED.  THEREFORE IT REPRESENTS THE FACT
THAT BUSH IS DOING BETTER AMOUNG THE SUBGROUP LIKELY VOTERS THEN REGISTERED
VOTERS.

THE 5% POLL,  LAST TIME SUCH A POLL CAME OUT WAS AFTER THE CONVENTION WHEN
PEOPLES CHOOSES WERE VERY VOLITILE.

STEVIE,  BEFORE YOU GUESS THAT MAYBEE THESE POLLS,  MANY OF WHICH YOU ADMIT
YOU WON'T EVEN READ, ARE BIASED,  IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO LEARN ALITTLE
ABOUT POLLING.  
>  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle