This series of blogs got started basically about the accuracy of scientific polls. If sample subjects are chosen truly RANDOMLY, a poll can predict reality with high probability. The crux is how subjects are chosen. This is not a trivial concern in polling. A well thought out protocol as to how individuals are chosen, how to breach the aim of the poll to the respondent, how to treat the answers received, what to do about "no opinion" answers, how to try to prevent as much as possible respondents giving answers opposite to their real intentions by follow up questions, etc. etc...

I know that polls can be designed to prove almost any point. These are not "scientific" polls, as the outcome is more or less predetermined.

During this time many feelings are running high concerning the directions our country may be taking during the near future. If we all try to learn as much as possible about candidates, use our God-given intelligence to try to figure things out, and, most importantly, don't impune others with evil motives, the future will surely be bearable

"don't impune others with evil motives"

Gee, that begins by reading for meaning and not accusing others of that which their post was specifically oriented about.

But its nice to watch you do EXACTLY that which you rant against in several posts!

Take a bow, it's sanctimonious self-righteous bigots like yourself telling Others how they should act rather than addressing your own limitations, who we have to fear.

I fear the best we can do this time around is to facilitate the positive aspects of gridlock in order to mitigate the damages done by either party's wacko wings.

Especially as Obama is simply a Rorschach blot for whatever the simple minded folks want him to be - contrary to the reality!

The less damage done the better. Hence, hold your nose and hope for a McCain victory. At least this way, neither wing has an easy road to pass legislation and we limit the damage from either.

...And hope that this will force a reorganization of the Republican party such that the more fiscally conservative/libertarian groups within the party can mount an effective resurgence and regain control from the socially liberal religious right who are not content with simply practicing their beliefs in the privacy of their home and act like liberals in attempting to force their beliefs on others via their wacko attempts at social engineering.

im a libertarian, former liberal, thanks to the internet.

I believe that trolling for voters via the internet, the media or the snarls between the two candidates' staff will not add much to predicting the next U.S. president. I believe that 65% of the potential voters are smart enough to filter out all the poll chowder, etc. I believe that whoever voters are for today (6/18) will get their vote when they enter the booth in November and pull the lever. I also believe that there is a vast number of voters polled or unpolled who are keeping their choice "unknown."
pegit

Once again, the media clones and drones on its merry way. I find it "very interesting" that almost every thing political out there - in the main stream news - has (about) 5 Obama stories to 1 McCain story. Very interesting and confirming the idea that there are powers out there controlling the media and their talking heads who don't care about party affiliation, they just care about who or what they control once their candidate of choice gets in. VERY, VERY INTERESTING.

Don't confuse me with your opinions. I know that I am right and you are wrong. (How do you like them apples? It sure beats thinking for yourself) Signed: Eggheads for Obama

Confuse you?!?!?! ROFLMAO!

Impossible! No one can confuse you more than you do yourself!

Our only consolation is that with any luck, you will continue to refrain from contributing to the gene pool!

A Nitwit Egghead who are unable to read for meaning.

Let's see.

A demographic breakdown of Internet users might favor one group over another?

No! It can't be true.

Maybe the next article will actually present something newsworthy...

Im conservative, 31, open minded, educated and think this survey's stupid.

I also think Che Guevara is a murdeorus commie yet you see Obama and Che posters together. Should I assume something out of that?

Yes, you most definitely should.

I guess you should probably assume the same you assume when you see Republicans (NOT Republican POSTERS, but Republicans in the flesh) and Hitler posters together ....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353536,00.html

Fascinating...

Let's see, Democrats and liberals seek to expand the roll of the central government in both the social and fiscal arenas via social engineering and socialism.

Yet most of the current generation of liberals started out fearing "Big Brother" - only to become champions of the very thing they feared.

The terms conservative is now used by several groups with radically different philosophies (eg the fiscal/libertarian conservatives favoring a balanced budget and limited strictly defined scope for the federal government w/o social engineering; and the social/religious right who have no problem with using the government to social engineer and differ from the liberals only in their agenda - but not means - hence making them right wing liberals.

And the primary reason that the Republicans are low in the polls is that the populace is pissed at them wantonly abandoning their professed positions in return for their chance to be the biggest pigs at the trough of federal spending. NOT because they are conservative which they have proven by their actions no to be!

And Bush has grown the Federal government more than any president since Johnson and increased unfunded federal mandates from 3 to 8 trillion dollars with his increase in social welfare programs. HARDLY conservative! In fact the Liberal Democrats only b!tch is that they didn't spend enough!

Have the Republicans screwed up? Absolutely! But only because Bush and company are NOT conservatives, but simply 'liberal lights' whose only backbone has come in supporting religious social engineering issues which according to conservative ideology is beyond the scope of the government's responsibility.

Guess which camp that distinction puts Hilter and his bout with social engineering?

So while your association is cute, it simply reflects that you don't have a clue about that which you are talking.

- Trust me, when I see a Hitler image, as incredible as it may sound to you, my first association is NOT “federal overspending” … I have a feeling I’m not alone in that
- “the primary reason that the Republicans are low in the polls is that the populace is pissed at them wantonly abandoning their professed positions in return for their chance to be the biggest pigs at the trough of federal spending” Sorry, but how do you then explain that the Republican voters have selected John McCain over, say, Ron Paul as their candidate for this year’s elections?

Sorry to bust your bubble "FOXFYRE", but I was born six months after Hitler came to power and grew up in the shadow of the vilest group of racists, sexists and anti-homosexualists the world has ever seen. To compare anyone today with anyone from that time of that persuasion is tantamount to character assassination and they should have their contribution deleted for foul language and personal attacks.

So I am the one who initiated a comparison with Hitler.

Funny, for all of your years you still haven't learned to read for meaning.

The fact is that the above author made the association with Hitler to which I was objecting.

But I guess such an erudite reader as yourself should have had to have someone read that to you and explain it for you to understand it, wouldn't you.

So "sorry to burst your bubble", as while I have no idea as to your sexual activity, we can be sure that your mental inactivity is as close to a 'virgin' relative to having experienced a sentient thought as a single ganglion can possible be.

The world sure is complicated for you, isn't it?

Let's see, has the majority actually chosen McCain as the candidate, or has that occurred merely as a function of those who have chosen to participate in the primary process?

Ron Paul, although instructive in his policies suffers from the same fatal flaw as that the Libertarian Party - their limited scope of the Federal government is overshadowed by their strict insistence of an 18th century concept of isolationism (which would have prevented our participation in preventing geniuses such as Hitler!) but also upon their strict adherence to the instantaneous legalization of all drugs - which while the position has many merits over time and the percentage of societal use does naturally mitigate, not to mention empty our jails of the incredible number there for simple possession of individual use, would result in the pendulum radically swinging from one extreme to another, with the immediate short term result being waves of casualties by idiots becoming casualties due to their interpretation of the change in laws as being a license for abuse - the result being a radical backlash cry of outrage by all of the folks assuming the role of victim in society rather than that of a responsible citizen which the change requires.

The fact is that none of the current Republicans have come forth as a coherent leader who has the balls to stand up to the religious right to tell them that while they are free to believe as they will, that the government is not a tool for the promulgation not the restriction of their or any other groups' belief. In fact, it has been the religious right that has dominated the party since Bush - and also why folks like d*** Army - the first House Republican Majority leader in a generation on the eve of having a Republican President and thus controlling both Congress and the Presidency, and a one issue advocate for the Flat Tax and bringing the IRS under the rule of law - as well as the ranking Senator, Phil Gramm, both suddenly choosing to retire rather than to continue with the prospect of Bush as president...rather strange don't you think?

Why too such ranking members of Congress, who conceivably would have a real opportunity to advance their fiscal conservative agendas, would suddenly retire on the eve of what might have been perceived as their winning the lottery... Hmmmm. But the reason was actually very simple. As d*** Army was later quoted from an off the record comment - He couldn't work with Bush! They ALREADY knew Bush's real colors already from Texas! Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative! Their efforts would have been in vain. So they opted for other activities. They realized what to many other failed to understand. Bush is not a fiscal conservative - rather he is a social liberal who acts as an advocate of the religious right's scial agenda.

Unfortunately, the social right in the form of the religious right has dominated the Republican party of late. And the fiscal conservatives, rather than stand up and unite to take control of the party, remained fragmented in various camps, ranging from the Libertarians and the fiscally conservative Republicans, with their votes effectively split.

The result...many of us who do advocate freedom of choice and individual responsibility feeling very alienated by a party whose social platform we abhor while watching the social right and other opportunitists posing as 'leaders' such as Tom Delay, and Kaye Bailey Hutchinson assume the role of becoming the biggest hogs in the trough as they 'bring back as much as they can for their states' in the form of more earmark/pork entitlements and as she actively opposed a proposed moratorium on earmarks this spring! So much for conservative leadership!!!

The result is that MANY fiscally conservative and libertarian Republicans sitting the primary process out given the sh!tty choices available - or more instructively, voting for the candidate most likely to galvanize the conservatives against the Democrats in an election given the less than exhilarating choice they have - in other words, voting for Hilary over Obama in the primary rather than voting for any Republican. And don't misunderstand this - we voed for Hilary only because she would have been the weakest opponant given a McCain candidacy! NOT because we are for Hilary!!!!!! She would galvanize the opposition with her incredibly high negatives and steal less of the independent vote upon who McCain depends.

In my opinion, the best we can do it hope for gridlock - a McCain presidency with e Democratic Congress. The reason is simple. The president acts as a gatekeeper. They either sign or veto legislation. They sign their own party's, and they veto the oppositions. Thus, with gridlock, we are assured that ONLY bills that are able to engender a 2/3 majority pass, with the remainder of the partisan crap (just look at what Congress who has a lower approval rating by more than half of Bush's! has been turning out!) being able to be effectively blocked. Thus only bills that can effectively engender bi-partisan support have a reasonable chance of passing and overcoming a threatened veto would have a chance of becoming law - in other words, we mitigate the damage caused by either irresponsible partisan party - both of which are controlled by the wacko elements of their parties who only give a damn about their OWN selfish interests and agendas. And both of the dominant groups (wacko socialist left and the religious right) are socially liberal in that they both advocate the government's use of social engineering - the use of the rule of law to impose their own particular values on others. The only difference is the particular hangups they which to force on others by law rather than by debate and logic and free choice.

So we have 2 choices - gridlock to mitigate the resulting damage - or an Obama/Democratic Congress whose bias will result in 4 years of wacko inspired lunacy that will drive a backlash in 4 years.

We vote for the lessor of evils and hopefully the mitigation of the damage as a Democratic Congress will not move to pass McCain's agenda, and McCain will at least mitigate the damage a Democratic Congress can wreak.

And regarding your asinine and infantile reference to Hitler, there is no logical association. In that regards: YOU ARE AN UNMITIGATED @SS.

FOXFYRE, YOU ARE SUCH A SWEET PERSON. WE SHOULD HAVE MORE OF YOUR KIND. LSTEN TO "FAUX NEWS" -- BARE AND BIGOTED. BY THE WAY HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF AN OXYMORON. I AM READY TO BE INSULTED AGAIN.

As if a free radical moron somehow absolves you of simply being a redundant moron.

But we'll thank you for keeping the gene pool clean.

And bigoted? My response was against the linkage of Hitler to anyone!

You simply lack the capacity to read for understanding as YOU falsely and ignorantly accuse others of bigotry.

Sorry if simply acknowledging the obvious is an insult to you.

Why is this in the news? I thought it's pretty well-known that democratic camp is younger, educated and more open minded, while republican - older and more conservative. Thus democrats use the net more. So what's new about the survey again?

"Thus democrats use the net more."
They use it more for things that are a total waste of time - like hugging trees, saving whales and just being left wing loones.

And for sure you have the data to back that up ... :)

(© 2008 PC_Tool)

2,251 Americans polled representing every American-internet users. Right!

Let me guess for which candidate BetaNews people are for.

"BetaNews and politic, Fair and Balance"

Come on "brian85scott" haven't you heard of scientific polling? You pick a RANDOM sample of sufficient size to approximate the statistics of the global sample, allowing you to calculate with high confidence what the global sample really is saying or doing. Please, you weren't born yesterday. Get an education for America.

2,251 Americans polled representing every American-internet users. Right!

You need 400 randomly chosen samples to get within 5% 95% of the time.

More samples improve your accuracy.

The problem is randomly selecting your subjects.

2,251 Americans is a large enough sample. The question is how were the 2,251 people selected?

Did they use phone numbers from the voter rolls? If so then you can expect that people that value there privacy are disproportionately excluded.

Did they use random phone number selections? If they skipped cell phone numbers they under counted the under 30 crowd, if they only used cell phones they under counted the over 60 crowd, and if they sampled all numbers they double counted baby boomers.

Sort of sad that there is this level of mathematical ignorance.

The polling was done by an independent agency which has conducted thousands of scientifically designed polls. Most polls accurately predict what the global sample is really saying. An exception was during the Truman-Dewey presidential election which predicted erroneously that Dewey would win. Scientific polling was in its infancy at that time and excluded non-phone subscribers who were in 1948 a significant portion of the electorate.

Are you from Ohio, and your mother's name is Linda, and you have one brother and one sister?

I don't believe that these polls are ever right. No one can prove that they are, and most of the time common sense tells you that they aren't.

Statistics is a quite solid discipline of mathematics and your question highlights that you don't even grasp it at the most general level.

Dubya was sitting with his advisers one day not long ago. Someone said something to him that was counter to what he believed to be the truth. That someone had almost incontrovertible evidence that that someone was correct and Dubya was wrong. His comment was "Don't confuse me with facts. I really can't deal with the truth; I just go with my gut feeling." Nuf said.

Ah, but I have done the math as well, but they are not as sound as you would like them to be. They are based on way to many variables.

Conversations like these really show off the education level of some of the Betanews readers.

Just about all schools these days teach statists...I suggest you come back after you pass that class.

I find it a tad ironic that you should post your belief about something you allege cannot be proven to be correct.

The irony being that if you were to to take a sample of the accuracy of all of the polls ever taken, you wouldn't be able to prove that they were INaccurate.

And why on earth would you ever confuse "common sense" with polling accuracy? The two are diametrically opposed.

Well why didn't you say so! Now I can say for certain that polls are as inaccurate as you claim they are.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaait a sec... You had to to use math to prove math wrong. And if your math is wrong, you may have proven their math to be correct.

I'm going to do the math on your math.

Good point. Why the hell didn't *you* conduct the poll?

Very well, then, given feasibility, how *should* they have chosen the samples?

Point out a flaw? Provide a solution.

Mathematical cognizance is only as useful as its ability to be used.

Sort of sad that there is this level of logical ignorance.

The one very important time when scientific polling didn't work was during the 2000 presidential campaign. Scientific polling can only predict a range of values for a variable, say, those planning to vote for George Bush. Think of the entire electorate at a certain time as a population of millions from which you RANDOMLY pick a about 12 hundred individuals. This would need to be done state by state due to the electorial system. If almost equal numbers were planning to vote for Bush as were planning to vote for Gore across the population your statistical study would reveal nothing except that it "was too close to call".