From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Suburbs swing to Clinton in Time magazine poll
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:25:41 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep10.184736.24331@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
->In article <1918@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
->> 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,  

 Why not ?  Why arent we told the method and location of every poll and
warned about every potential built in bias in every specific poll. What
are they trying to hide from us ? Some of us common people are scientist,
engineers, specialists etc. etc.. Polling methods seem like simplistic
algorithmic procedures to some of us COMMON folks.  

->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.

 How do you know what I have heard and what I havent ? You response is a
typical elitist response.
 Taking polling data and providing it to a customer who has payed
for that data is one thing. Taking this data and censoring it is another.
Have you ever conceived of the possibility that some purchasers of polling
data dont use the data if they dont like it ? Has school started already ?

->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.

 Your math is brain dead. 

->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.

 OK, Ok. I admit I havent researched polling procedures. Which is why Im
asking these stupid questions which seem to amuse you. However, I have a
question for you. You claim that a poll with a 3% error margin could at
worst turn a 16% clinton lead into a 13% lead. The math dosent add up.
A 3% error margin could at best subtract 3% from Clinton and add 3% to
Bush. That makes a 16% Clinton lead into a 10% lead. 

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

 You obviously lead a sheltered life. Last week CNN had a poll which showed
a 5 percent lead. You arent even investigating the polls. Alex confirmed
this observation and said it was the CNN/Time poll showing 50% Clinton
and 45% Bush.
 Im still waiting for some one who actually knows the algorithms behind
the current procedures being used in poll taking to show his typeface :>

 Steve Tyree - These opinnions are mine and mine alone.