If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Useless statistics for today: More than 60% of all recipients of organ donations are betwixt the ages of 18 and 49. 1991 Gallup poll found that 49% of Americans didn't know white bread is made from wheat. The American election is statistically tied   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 54
    More: Interesting, ORC International, American Research Group, shoot out tournament  
•       •       •

803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Oct 2012 at 8:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 08:36:27 AM
img.21food.com
 
2012-10-02 08:40:31 AM
Is this typo headline day?
 
2012-10-02 08:41:10 AM
The president's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error.

So... assuming that the polls are off by 3 to 3.5 points, Romney could actually be ahead. And assuming that all polls have the same 3 to 3.5 error, we can safely assume that 0bummer is toast!

That's just crazy enough to potato.

/First time I'm used a potato joke.
//Feel slightly ashamed.
///Sorry, Downs girl.
 
2012-10-02 08:42:37 AM
Well let's see what Nate Silver has to say about all this.. I mean last election he got 49 states accurate so I imagine it's going to be lock step with CNN in every......

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-02 08:46:30 AM

thornhill: Is this typo headline day?


Subby spelled statisticals wrong.
 
2012-10-02 08:46:31 AM
I thought CNN was just a sort of work-for-the-dole public works project for Wolf Blitzer and McCafferty to use to fill in time while they wait for that final clutching hand of the eternal specter of death to close around their respective hearts and let them, finally, finally, stop this sad charade that retweeting aloud is news.
 
2012-10-02 08:46:47 AM
The popular vote means squat. Romney could have 99% of texas or 51% of Texas. Makes a huge difference in his popular vote number. Makes zero difference in his electoral vote number. The entire election is being decided by 5 states. What are the numbers there? Yeah, not as close.
 
2012-10-02 08:47:16 AM
There are only 3 statisticals that matter.
 
2012-10-02 08:47:41 AM
In before 538.com graph.
 
2012-10-02 08:48:24 AM
And that's how you work the refs guys. Complain for a few weeks that the samples the polls are using don't include enough of your voters to make your guy look worse and polls start magically coming out that reinforce your view!!!

/Throw in a few liebrul media accusations too, just so you can play the victim more.
 
2012-10-02 08:48:59 AM
... so BE SURE to tune in for the FIRST Presidential Debate LIVE on CNN Wednesday night...

100% of news organizations ignore the existence of the Electoral College when it suits their marketing purposes.
 
2012-10-02 08:49:43 AM

LoneWolf343: In before 538.com graph.


I had already linked to it.
 
2012-10-02 08:50:07 AM

s1ugg0: Well let's see what Nate Silver has to say about all this.. I mean last election he got 49 states accurate so I imagine it's going to be lock step with CNN in every......

[media.tumblr.com image 390x299]


You didn't post the graph, so I am still counting a point to myself.
 
2012-10-02 08:50:42 AM
1) 30% of Hillary supporters for Romney
2) 1 in 7 undecided
3) Silent majority

Romney wins. You guys are gonna be sooo pissed off.
 
2012-10-02 08:52:36 AM
Useless statistics are CNN's stock in trade although brain numbing dispatches from the Twit-o-sphere are rapidly making a play for top spot.
 
2012-10-02 08:56:35 AM

quatchi: Useless statistics are CNN's stock in trade although brain numbing dispatches from the Twit-o-sphere are rapidly making a play for top spot.


Top spot... forever... has to go to this rag:

i158.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-02 08:57:38 AM
Recipients of organ donations? Farkin' 47%ers...
 
2012-10-02 09:00:37 AM

s1ugg0: Well let's see what Nate Silver has to say about all this.. I mean last election he got 49 states accurate so I imagine it's going to be lock step with CNN in every......

[media.tumblr.com image 390x299]


FTFL: Fortunately, such an outcome remains quite unlikely. Of the 25,001 simulations that we ran on Monday, a 269-269 tie came up in 152 model runs, or about 0.6 percent of the time.

Chill, dude.
 
2012-10-02 09:01:12 AM
Half of Americans (2006 poll) still believed that Iraq had WMDs.
In 1999, 68% of Americans did not know what event is celebrated on the Fourth of July.
The same 1999 poll had 20% of Americans that believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
In 2006, 58% of Americans did not know the three branches of Government.
In 2007, just over half of Americans knew that Judiasm is older than Christianity.

Being proud of ignorance is why the GOP still exists.
 
2012-10-02 09:04:40 AM
Rasmussen polling shows that 84% of wheat bread doesn't work as hard as its white bread counterparts. Naan and white rice are both considered 'white bread' for purposes of that study.
 
2012-10-02 09:04:57 AM

andrewagill: quatchi: Useless statistics are CNN's stock in trade although brain numbing dispatches from the Twit-o-sphere are rapidly making a play for top spot.

Top spot... forever... has to go to this rag:

[i158.photobucket.com image 400x360]


Dear FSM, that "news article" has less information than 15 seconds of Match Game.
 
2012-10-02 09:09:19 AM
Whilst I was perusing the headline, I noticed that submitter used some flowery language in said headline. Heh.

*adjusts fedora, straightens jorts*
 
2012-10-02 09:09:24 AM
No, it's not. Obama is up 3 points and which is also the margin of error. This means that it's equally likely that the race is tied or... Obama is actually up 6 points. fark you CNN. Didn't mention that in your little twist didja?
 
2012-10-02 09:09:24 AM
If it were truly tied, then wouldn't about half the polls have Romney leading, inside the MOE?
 
2012-10-02 09:14:03 AM

Bladel: If it were truly tied, then wouldn't about half the polls have Romney leading, inside the MOE?


Yes. This is a bullshiat twist of the truth generated by CNN so they can make it still seem like a horse race.
 
2012-10-02 09:20:32 AM
Do people really pay attention to the horse-race polls?
 
2012-10-02 09:26:39 AM
It's too much to think about.

/oblig, a bit of NSFW language
 
2012-10-02 09:28:06 AM

Bladel: If it were truly tied, then wouldn't about half the polls have Romney leading, inside the MOE?


Not necessarily.
Flip a coin 50 times and it could land on heads 50 times in a row.
 
2012-10-02 09:30:30 AM

theknuckler_33: Do people really pay attention to the horse-race polls?


Only if they show obama with a big lead
 
2012-10-02 09:39:48 AM

s1ugg0: Well let's see what Nate Silver has to say about all this.. I mean last election he got 49 states accurate so I imagine it's going to be lock step with CNN in every......

[media.tumblr.com image 390x299]


Ugh. Even Nate's so bored reporting that Obama will most likely win that he's daydreaming about a close race.
 
2012-10-02 09:46:26 AM
I was assured Obama is cruising to a landslide victory.

What are these shenanigans?
 
2012-10-02 09:46:53 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: s1ugg0: Well let's see what Nate Silver has to say about all this.. I mean last election he got 49 states accurate so I imagine it's going to be lock step with CNN in every......

[media.tumblr.com image 390x299]

Ugh. Even Nate's so bored reporting that Obama will most likely win that he's daydreaming about a close race.


"0.6 percent"

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-02 09:56:43 AM

s1ugg0: Well let's see what Nate Silver has to say about all this.. I mean last election he got 49 states accurate


How far out did he have those 49 states accurate? I mean, October is the month that both parties will pull out any surprises they may have waiting and all that.
 
2012-10-02 09:58:10 AM

Cletus C.: I was assured Obama is cruising to a landslide victory.

What are these shenanigans?


You are such a dope.
 
2012-10-02 09:58:12 AM

GhostFish: Bladel: If it were truly tied, then wouldn't about half the polls have Romney leading, inside the MOE?

Not necessarily.
Flip a coin 50 times and it could land on heads 50 times in a row.


I forget how to statistics (college was a few years ago, and they have computers now), but if they were truly tied, random sampling (a poll of polls) would likely show Romney ahead less often than Obama. I don't know at what point it becomes statistical improbability that Obama would be ahead-within-the-MOE or simply ahead virtually 100% of the time, but I'm sure a decent number of polls could have Romney ahead 40-50% of the time in a close-ish race (i.e. Obama up 57-43).

Anyone want to solve this problem using math?
 
2012-10-02 10:10:20 AM
I hate this "statistical tie" reporting. No, it's not.

If Obama is leading by 5 in a poll with a MoE of 3, the news media will report that as a "statistical tie," and will never report it as "Obama possibly up by double digits," even though either possibility is equally likely given the data.

The news media is so transparent. They want a horse-race to help their ratings, so they are always going to spin the polls to make it look like a closer race than it is.
 
2012-10-02 10:10:38 AM
CNN: If there's no real news, we'll make some.

/Pro-tip: Romney's waaaaaay behind when you look at it from an electoral college perspective
 
2012-10-02 10:20:03 AM

Carn: Cletus C.: I was assured Obama is cruising to a landslide victory.

What are these shenanigans?

You are such a dope.


Settle down. I am also assured it is the Electoral College that determines the presidential race. No need to panic.

Yet.
 
2012-10-02 10:22:04 AM
Statistical tie because the South REALLY hates him, so they are deep deep red. I used to want popular vote to determine the President, but with all the regional bullshiat, I don't want the South to determine a candidate, for example. The EC, while flawed, does protect against that. I think we need to fix the EC rather than going for popular vote.
 
2012-10-02 10:28:59 AM

Cletus C.: Carn: Cletus C.: I was assured Obama is cruising to a landslide victory.

What are these shenanigans?

You are such a dope.

Settle down. I am also assured it is the Electoral College that determines the presidential race. No need to panic.

Yet.


You understand why this upsets me, right? (Not you, CNN's incorrect headline). It's not true. Or, at best, it's equally true to say that Obama is now leading by 6 points because statistics. What is most accurate is to say that Obama is up 3, but within the margin of error (implying it could be tied or he is up by 6). It is completely inaccurate to say that the race is a statistical tie. To then run with that and say "SEE! I told you guys!" makes you a dope. I know you are just trolling but this is the kind of shiat that ruins political discourse.

Step 1: Start with False Assumption
Step 2: Make conclusions!
Profit!
 
2012-10-02 10:35:51 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: Statistical tie because the South REALLY hates him, so they are deep deep red. I used to want popular vote to determine the President, but with all the regional bullshiat, I don't want the South to determine a candidate, for example. The EC, while flawed, does protect against that. I think we need to fix the EC rather than going for popular vote.


Popular vote would still be better for Democrats.

Republicans get a lot if extra EVs simply because there are so many low population red states that all lean (eg Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas) that all get at least three EVs regardless of how few actual people live there. It's the same thing artificially inflating the GOP's representation in the Senate.

Don't have time to do the math right now (maybe later) but I'd wager a month of TotalFark that if you took all the red and blue states from 2008, the red states would have much higher EVs calculated on a per capita basis.

The Electoral College creates an uneven playing field by its nature. The vote of a Utahn is worth more than the vote of a New Yorker.
 
2012-10-02 10:40:27 AM

Carn: Cletus C.: Carn: Cletus C.: I was assured Obama is cruising to a landslide victory.

What are these shenanigans?

You are such a dope.

Settle down. I am also assured it is the Electoral College that determines the presidential race. No need to panic.

Yet.

You understand why this upsets me, right? (Not you, CNN's incorrect headline). It's not true. Or, at best, it's equally true to say that Obama is now leading by 6 points because statistics. What is most accurate is to say that Obama is up 3, but within the margin of error (implying it could be tied or he is up by 6). It is completely inaccurate to say that the race is a statistical tie. To then run with that and say "SEE! I told you guys!" makes you a dope. I know you are just trolling but this is the kind of shiat that ruins political discourse.

Step 1: Start with False Assumption
Step 2: Make conclusions!
Profit!


And here I thought it was name-calling, condescending speech and dismissive attitudes. Those, combined with a dogged and unflinching fealty to one side that convinces you that anyone who disagrees with you or attempts to go off message even in the most benign way is a drooling troglodyte.

I now know better.
 
2012-10-02 10:47:17 AM

Doc Daneeka: The news media is so transparent. They want a horse-race to help their ratings, so they are always going to spin the polls to make it look like a closer race than it is.


Well, I won't be watching the debate on television. If by news media you mean internet access like YouTube, then you may be correct. Otherwise, most of this fake "Oh my God it's a dead heat" chase for ratings is self serving opinion on television news shows.

In case they haven't noticed their industry is in a death spiral worse than Romney's. Intrade has Romney's chance of winning at less than 25%. New households purchasing traditional cable and paid satellite service has dropped to less than 16%.
 
2012-10-02 10:51:26 AM

colon_pow: theknuckler_33: Do people really pay attention to the horse-race polls?

Only if they show obama with a big lead


Actually, it seems more likely for Republicans to point to the national popular vote polls since it shows the race closer than any electoral map analysis does which is, you know, all that really matters.
 
2012-10-02 11:00:03 AM

Doc Daneeka: Republicans get a lot if extra EVs simply because there are so many low population red states that all lean (eg Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas) that all get at least three EVs regardless of how few actual people live there. It's the same thing artificially inflating the GOP's representation in the Senate.


You do know this is by design, right? Not designed specifically to favor the GOP; designed specifically because STATES get representation IN ADDITION TO the people who live there.

The Democrats are more than welcome to make inroads in those smaller states. (Not in practice, mind you - in theory. We'd just need some sort of reverse Southern Strategy to make it work...)
 
2012-10-02 11:01:39 AM

Cletus C.: Carn: Cletus C.: Carn: Cletus C.: I was assured Obama is cruising to a landslide victory.

What are these shenanigans?

You are such a dope.

Settle down. I am also assured it is the Electoral College that determines the presidential race. No need to panic.

Yet.

You understand why this upsets me, right? (Not you, CNN's incorrect headline). It's not true. Or, at best, it's equally true to say that Obama is now leading by 6 points because statistics. What is most accurate is to say that Obama is up 3, but within the margin of error (implying it could be tied or he is up by 6). It is completely inaccurate to say that the race is a statistical tie. To then run with that and say "SEE! I told you guys!" makes you a dope. I know you are just trolling but this is the kind of shiat that ruins political discourse.

Step 1: Start with False Assumption
Step 2: Make conclusions!
Profit!

And here I thought it was name-calling, condescending speech and dismissive attitudes. Those, combined with a dogged and unflinching fealty to one side that convinces you that anyone who disagrees with you or attempts to go off message even in the most benign way is a drooling troglodyte.

I now know better.


Unless you can disprove what I said above, which you can't because it is logically sound and technically accurate, than nothing that you have said applies to me and only applies to yourself. Apparently, we are having a one-way discourse where I talk about facts and reality and such things while you throw out non sequiturs and side step the main argument because you know that you are wrong.
 
2012-10-02 11:03:03 AM

Doc Daneeka: I hate this "statistical tie" reporting. No, it's not.

If Obama is leading by 5 in a poll with a MoE of 3, the news media will report that as a "statistical tie," and will never report it as "Obama possibly up by double digits," even though either possibility is equally likely given the data.

The news media is so transparent. They want a horse-race to help their ratings, so they are always going to spin the polls to make it look like a closer race than it is.


Yes it is

The definition of a statistical tie is those who are within the margin of error.

Why of course I can provide a citation Link
 
2012-10-02 11:15:42 AM
Even if Obama's lead is not statistically significant in a given poll, that does not mean that we can conclude that the race is actually tied, the way that the media implies that it is.

It means that there is a small, but statistically significant possibility that the race is actually tied. Just as it also means that there is an equally strong possibility that Obama's lead is actually twice as much.
 
2012-10-02 11:18:03 AM

cman: Doc Daneeka: I hate this "statistical tie" reporting. No, it's not.

If Obama is leading by 5 in a poll with a MoE of 3, the news media will report that as a "statistical tie," and will never report it as "Obama possibly up by double digits," even though either possibility is equally likely given the data.

The news media is so transparent. They want a horse-race to help their ratings, so they are always going to spin the polls to make it look like a closer race than it is.

Yes it is

The definition of a statistical tie is those who are within the margin of error.

Why of course I can provide a citation Link


From your link:

"Anything below 95% is considered by some political writers to be a "statistical tie," even though in most cases one candidate is more likely to be ahead."
 
2012-10-02 11:38:53 AM

Carn: cman: Doc Daneeka: I hate this "statistical tie" reporting. No, it's not.

If Obama is leading by 5 in a poll with a MoE of 3, the news media will report that as a "statistical tie," and will never report it as "Obama possibly up by double digits," even though either possibility is equally likely given the data.

The news media is so transparent. They want a horse-race to help their ratings, so they are always going to spin the polls to make it look like a closer race than it is.

Yes it is

The definition of a statistical tie is those who are within the margin of error.

Why of course I can provide a citation Link

From your link:

"Anything below 95% is considered by some political writers to be a "statistical tie," even though in most cases one candidate is more likely to be ahead."


some =/= all. The general consensus is that within the margin of error is a statistical tie.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report