jerseyhoya wrote:I think Blumenthal's point is more Silver has an exalted reputation at the moment and him going beyond questioning the results of the poll by implying the integrity of the pollster should be doubted when the facts don't appear to back him up is a $#@! up thing to do.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think Blumenthal's point is more Silver has an exalted reputation at the moment and him going beyond questioning the results of the poll by implying the integrity of the pollster should be doubted when the facts don't appear to back him up is a $#@! up thing to do.

I get that. I think Blumenthal exaggerates Silver's position, which I take to be that when 2 polls from organizations of the same political persuasion produce results that vary so much from all other polls - and just happen to shine happily on the candidate of their favor - it's worth reflecting why that might be the case.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think Blumenthal's point is more Silver has an exalted reputation at the moment and him going beyond questioning the results of the poll by implying the integrity of the pollster should be doubted when the facts don't appear to back him up is a $#@! up thing to do.

I get that. I think Blumenthal exaggerates Silver's position, which I take to be that when 2 polls from organizations of the same political persuasion produce results that vary so much from all other polls - and just happen to shine happily on the candidate of their favor - it's worth reflecting why that might be the case.

His reflection probably could have considered the parade of national GOP figures streaming into the district endorsing the Conservative candidate in between the other public polling and the two polls showing Hoffman up. That is if he wanted to reflect on something that mattered, and if he wasn't too bothered in poking holes in his zOMG the right wing is lying hypothesis.

jerseyhoya wrote:When you are looking for differences between two polls that were in the field at different times and you don't even mention the (really quite big) events that occurred in the days between when the two polls were in the field, and instead you focus all your attention to explain the different results on the idea that the second poll is some right wing attempt to make up something that isn't there, you are being disingenuous or purposely ignorant or dare I say trying to "alter reality."

However, the trend is consistent with earlier results and recent news. The two surveys from Siena College in late September and mid-October track a seven point decline in Scozzafava's support and a six point increase for Hoffman. Quite a bit also happened over the last week. Last Wednesday night, while the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll was still in the field, Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman on her Facebook page, a development that subsequently received national attention. Hoffman also received endorsements from Steve Forbes and Rick Santorum on Friday. Basswood Research conducted their survey on Saturday and Sunday.

The basic premise of the authors, Robert Maranto and Richard E. Redding, is as follows:

SAT scores and other available measures indicate that Bush has sufficient intelligence to serve as president. Yet the best studies, in which raters evaluate statements without being aware of their source, suggest that Bush lacks integrative complexity and thus views issues without nuance. The leading personality theory (the “5-Factor Model”), as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory, suggests that Bush is highly extraverted but not very agreeable or conscientious. He also rates low on “Openness to Experience.” Similarly Immelman (2002) had expert raters judge Bush‟s personality using the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria. Raters identified Bush as fitting the “Outgoing,” “Dominant (Controlling),” and “Dauntless” personality patterns, which together constitute a style given to lack of reflection, superficiality, and impulsivity. When compared to other presidents, Bush most closely resembles Jackson, Reagan, and Harding, but is very unlike his father, George H.W. Bush.

The “Bush is dumb” meme was always unfair. Those who’ve known him, and not just his loyalists, have always disputed such a characterization.
...

The problem with Bush’s leadership style was never lack of intelligence. It was something much closer to intellectual laziness or lack of curiosity. As the authors put it: “Critics charge that President Bush does not seek out information or opposing viewpoints; disdains complexity, nuances, and expert opinion; views policy issues in black-and-white terms based on his own preconceptions; and, refuses to rethink problems or change his views. The research largely bears out these popular perceptions.”
...
What’s the lesson of an exercise like this? The leader has to match the time. Bush’s traits may well have made him an excellent (or at least decent) president in a time of peace, focused on domestic policy, and restrained by Congress. And, in 2000, that’s what we thought we were electing him to preside over. But in a time of war, in a system where the executive can act decisively and autonomously, his decision-making style was a disaster.

What’s more, his inability to vary his decision-making style was a disaster. The authors make the point that Reagan was often just as black-and-white as President Bush. He thought of the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire.” But, when circumstances changed — when Gorbachev came to power — he adjusted his thinking and his actions quickly.

Phillies Game 1 win helps Corzine
By Wally Edge

Statistically, Democrats are more likely to win a race for Governor of New Jersey when the New York Yankees lose Game 1 of the Word Series. The Yankees have played in the World Series eleven times in gubernatorial election years, and have only lost Game 1 two other times: in 2001, when Democrat James E. McGreevey was elected, and in 1922, when Democrat George Silzer won. Tonight's win by the Philadelphia Phillies marks the first time they won Game 1 of the World Series in a year New Jersey elects a Governor; in 1993, the Toronto Blue Jays won Game 1.

jerseyhoya wrote:Well he does start off by saying this before dismantling the rest of Silver's insinuation, which is right along the same lines with what I was saying:

{quoted stuff}

Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has a clear shot to win next week’s New York special election and is within one point of the lead, according to the latest Daily Kos poll out today.

The poll shows Democrat Bill Owens holding a tiny one-point lead over Hoffman, 33 to 32 percent, with Republican Dede Scozzafava lagging behind in third with 21 percent of the vote. It’s clear Hoffman is gaining momentum – in the Daily Kos survey of the race last week, Hoffman was still in third place, trailing Owens 35 to 23 percent (with Scozzafava at 30 percent).

in fact, both Owens and Scozzafava have lost ground since last week's survey, while Hoffman has been gaining steam.

This poll is consistent with internal numbers that Democrats are seeing, which is why they’ve been targeting Hoffman with attack ads this week. Democrats have concluded that Hoffman, with his financial resources and support from the conservative base, is the candidate with the best chance of defeating Owens.

Werthless wrote:I would have thought that you, more than anyone else, would have appreciated the more tactful insinuations that he used.

jerseyhoya wrote:
Kos joining the right wing poll fudging movement to prop up Hoffman.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
Kos joining the right wing poll fudging movement to prop up Hoffman.

wait, so Kos does his own polling?

More work for Silver - it's the least he should do to pull apart the Greek's method & sniff around for slackass technique, just like with the other guy

jerseyhoya wrote:Club for Growth on the other hand opened a bag of skittles and counted how many green, red and yellow skittles were in the packet.

Miraculously they got similar results.

jerseyhoya wrote:I know that internal polls are selectively leaked, and you can't take them as gospel. As Blumenthal noted, internal polls have been shown to be about 2-4% more favorable on average, and this has to do with the sharing good news/not sharing bad news effect.

Silver went a step (or three) further and said there was a big chance the CfG had their pollster manipulate the poll to get more favorable results. Then the CfG released the guts of the poll, and it looked legit to Blumenthal, who has spent his life as a professional Democratic pollster, and Silver said. "they answer some questions while raising some fresh ones."

Silver was wrong. As in not right. And further polling has borne this out. If he wants to become a run of the mill blogger and just turn into someone that throws $#@! at the wall with a partisan tinge and hope some of it sticks, more power to him. That seems to go contrary to how he's operated thus far.