I want Trump to attack Walker's record again. Don't leave anyone unscathed!
The entire purpose of reporting the margin of error is to be able to do this.
Here is an example of NYT reporting in 2012:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/u...ying-obama-bounce-is-sugar-high.html?_r=1&hpw
Why are they "combining" margins of error "like that"?
I can't even imagine how happy Hillary Clinton must be. A story could come out that she personally broke into the State Department, stole their email server, burned it over the grave of Vince Foster and still no one would give a fuck. Thank you Donald Trump.
Yeah, good point. I concede we can't assume the difference is statistically significant without seeing the data ourselves.
interesting that they chose to report that "Bush trails" when statistically Bush and Trump are within the margin of error of each other.
I don't have the exact parameters of that poll, but assuming 95% confidence level I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the poll suggests the Bush trails trump.
I caught your ninja edit as you caught my edit.
That's the only thing you can do when you report on polls though.Assuming a normal and uncorrelated distribution of errors, yes, it is more likely than not that these polling results show Trump ahead of Bush. But we don't report "more likely than not"
I honestly think there is little point in reporting on such things, they don't contribute to understanding of most people and since bias is a much much bigger issue with polling, I feel that digging too deep into these things creates an illusion of accuracy that does not exists.Yeah, that's my understanding of why they feel comfortable saying Trump was leading. They chose an alpha level of 5% or maybe even 2% or 1% and the poll satisfied their alpha level. Maybe they would have worded themselves better if they weren't limited by a 140 character tweet. "(given a 95% confidence level)" is hard to fit in.
This is the true Ouroboros. It makes the infighting after Bernie's Seattle rally look insignificant.Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
Enough is Enough- no more Bushes! https://instagram.com/p/6NbVyEmhdB/
to be fair, nobody gave a shit anyway. email server scandals are dime a dozen and boring as fuck. Same with the rest of the nontroversies they've tried to pin on her
But I will find it funny that something as small as emails ends her candidacy.
It's 1.6 times the margin of error, not 2 times, for calculations like that. So, it needs to be within an 11 point difference to say it falls in the margin of error, but Trump has an 12 point lead. That large of a lead still falls within the 95% confidence range even for a margin of error that large.
It's also worth noting that even being in the margin of error doesn't mean the poll is statistically insignificant. If the lead was only half the margin of error, you'd still have a 70% confidence interval.
Of course, errors in sampling and weighing cause the realistic confidence to be much lower, but mathematically that's how it works.
http://www.danvk.org/wp/2008-09-25/how-to-read-polls/
It's a fact now?
I wouldn't go that far. It reinforces preconceived notions about Clinton that she is not honest and trustworthy. Myself, I don't give a crap. It's freaking emails for crying out loud. We all do email, we all delete emails. We'll get access to those emails and chances are there will be something juicy but irrelevant. The problem for her is classified material. From what I can tell, she sent things that "should" of been classified. GOP will make a big hoopla about it. Sanders supporters will say this is why we can't nominate her and the
"nontroversies" as you say will continue. But I will find it funny that something as small as emails ends her candidacy.
Trump leads the Republican field with 32 percent of the vote, up 7 percentage points over last week’s Morning Consult tracking poll. Trump’s nearest GOP rival, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, clocked in at 11 percent.
No other Republican contender reaches double digits – retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson sits in third place at 9 percent, followed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) at 6 percent.
This is how much anyone cares about these constant email controversies. Or this much. Let's not forget Sarah
Seriously, this comes up every election. Nobody cares. Hypothetical but non-real classified information exchanged is not going to change that. Ironically, whenever government emails from official servers are needed they can't be found. The GOP will get as far with this as they will with Benghazi. Sanders supporters are already living in a fantasy land. If they want to believe something as esoteric as email servers will bring down Clinton, more power to them.
Pointing out that other people did the same thing Clinton did does not prove there is not interest. In fact, I know 50% of the country is very interested for obvious political reasons.
The problem for Clinton is the email server feeds into preconceived notions.
I want Clinton as President. I genuinely think she's the right person for the job, but I'm not going to deny that these emails and are a thorn in her candidacy.
Another new poll came out from The Morning Consult.
http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-trump-at-32-percent-in-new-post-debate-poll/
Pointing out that other people did the same thing Clinton did does not prove there is not interest. In fact, I know 50% of the country is very interested for obvious political reasons. The problem for Clinton is the email server feeds into preconceived notions. The best scandals (even fake ones) are scandals that feeds into preconceived notions. I want Clinton as President. I genuinely think she's the right person for the job, but I'm not going to deny that these emails and are a thorn in her candidacy.
I don't know what people were expecting. If he could survive and thrive after those McCain comments, last week wasn't going to do a damn thing to him.
A lot of Republicans liked Trump's performance in the debate. The most important things for candidates to get at this point in the primary are to get name recognition, differentiate themselves from the rest of the field, and to gain media coverage. Trump managed to dominate news stories post-debate by so much that he was bound to be on the upswing. Currently, the only thing that can hurt him is a lack of media attention, but that's not going to happen any time soon.I did not think his comments would hurt him, but I honestly thought his debate performance would. I didn't think he had the worst performance in the debate but he wasn't good.
I suppose him attacking the media and especially Fox News over his belief they were trying to take him out helped maintain his polling numbers. It focused on his me vs the establishment GOP narrative.
Pointing out that other people did the same thing Clinton did does not prove there is not interest. In fact, I know 50% of the country is very interested for obvious political reasons. The problem for Clinton is the email server feeds into preconceived notions. The best scandals (even fake ones) are scandals that feeds into preconceived notions. I want Clinton as President. I genuinely think she's the right person for the job, but I'm not going to deny that these emails and are a thorn in her candidacy.
interesting that they chose to report that "Bush trails" when statistically Bush and Trump are within the margin of error of each other.
Sanders would be considered a typical Democrat in any other developed nation.I don't understand what you mean. (Not meaning to be obtuse, here.)
Also, I don't understand why all the other candidates don't try and ignore Trump. I realize it is hard to not go after a frontrunner, but they seem to release a statement over every comment he makes. Right now it seems 1/4 to 1/3 of the Conservative base is in revolt against the Republican party. Many of them are supporting Trump and attacking him is only going to help him with those voters.
I still think Trump won't win the nomination, but if he can somehow maintain the support of that group then perhaps he can win. The more moderate voters could split votes between Bush, Rubio and others.
The far right voters realize Trump is actually liberal or used to be anyway on some issues. I don't think they care, and will support him because he goes after the establishment. The question is will the conservatives in revolt eventually unite behind Jeb Bush if he is the nominee or will they stay home in large numbers? They eventually gave lukewarm support to McCain and Romney, but I'm not sure they will this time.
Trump interview with Chicago Tribune Editorial board, dropping his showman gimmick and talks about some economic/trade policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=h6P6MvMdC8I
How long until one of the other candidates starts bringing up the Anti-Christ stuff with Trump? It was pretty popular in 2008 against Obama but then kinda dropped off. His hair alone should be good for some bible quotes.
If there are more than 10 candidates for Iowa I think trump has an excellent shot at winning Iowa and more. The faster people drop out the faster people will consolidate behind similar candidates. Trump will mostly likely hold onto his 10-30% supporting him.
Trump interview with Chicago Tribune Editorial board, dropping his showman gimmick and talks about some economic/trade policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=h6P6MvMdC8I
I'm dying.
Trump interview with Chicago Tribune Editorial board, dropping his showman gimmick and talks about some economic/trade policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=h6P6MvMdC8I
Yeah this email controversy is really dragging her down. What makes it especially bad is the rolling disclosure nature of it. There's always something new to report about it, some half truth she said earlier. When most Americans hear about Clinton in the news nowadays it's not about a new policy proposal or about an interview she didn't give, it's about these damn emails.
Any highlights or timestamps? I feel like he's just saying the same nonsense ("take back our jobs", "here's how we take down ISIS") at a lower volume. Am I missing something?
Trump interview with Chicago Tribune Editorial board, dropping his showman gimmick and talks about some economic/trade policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=h6P6MvMdC8I
Trump has been attacking Rand Paul on Twitter. He attacks most of the candidates and Hillary of course.
Yet he just praised Ted Cruz on Twitter saying he had a very good debate and did much better than Rand Paul. Rand seems to be his favorite target today.
Damn, he actually sounds reasonable as hell in this interview.
Yeah, not a surprise, everything else so far was in line with a guy like Lieberman.Trump = SJW confirmed
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/280812064539283457
Where is your God now, Trump clergy?!?
He's not lying. I'll admit that he can say silly things, but he's quite attractive. I wish I look like him