2/27/2011 11:50 pm
. said: While you, Sean, live in a garage, post about your creepy adventures to Chuck E. Cheese and talk about your imaginary cougar girlfriend.
Looks like the "your math is wrong" guy got butthurt and is now following me around
2/27/2011 11:48 pm
It was 4% from what I can recall. Even when I lowered it to 3% based on the links you provided, Reid still fell out of the margin of error.
Stick to creating an Ironman suit in your basement, you hairy old degenerate liberal
2/27/2011 11:47 pm
. said: Why would we say that, when "at the end", she was polled ahead by only 1%?
At the end: final week. Final week (from my memory) was around 4%, but even given these links, she was 3.2% ahead or 2.7% ahead.
2/27/2011 11:44 pm
Maybe it'll sink in this time: YOU DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR UNDECIDEDS AND THIRD PARTIES.
And maybe this will sink in: a 3.5% margin of error, even in polls much more controlled and scientific than pre-election polls, means someone's final tally MUST BE OUT OF THE MARGIN OF ERROR, 1 time out of 20.
Would you say you're failing to understand this because you're butthurt the Republican lost, or just because you're a moron in general?
My math was absolutely correct.
It was two pages ago, and it is now.
As for the undecideds, TYPICALLY UNDECIDEDS FAVOR THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE WINNING.
Reid won because a bunch of union thugs got involved and convinced every turd on Earth to pencil in "Reid" right before the closing bell.
Every eighth rate illegal casino employee voted twice.
2/27/2011 11:41 pm
Why the hell does MovieWhore do this to himself?
I don't get it.
2/27/2011 11:40 pm
Archivist said: It's not the school, Sean, it's what you do with the education gained from it.
Shall we compare?
Sure. You have two failed photography businesses, were fired from every job you've had during the last ten years, three failed marriages, were convicted of failure to provide, borrowed money from your best friend for your horse and never paid him back, and got his teenage daughter pregnant.
2/27/2011 11:37 pm
. said: Your math is STILL wrong. In fact, the text you copy/pasted and tried to pretend was yours, said why. You don't even understand which part of it I'm talking about, do you?
You're a moron.
Your math is wrong.
Let's say at the end, Sharron Angle was polled to be ahead by 3%.
So, 49% favor sharron, while 46% favor Reid.
Let's say that is an average of the last week's polls right before the election.
With a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5%:
Sharron falls in the range of 52.5%, and 45.5%.
Harry Reid falls in the range of 49.5%, and 42.5%.
So, in the best/worst case scenario, Harry nails 49.5%, and sharron flails at 45.5%.
The difference is AT MOST 4%. So the very best Harry should have done, according to the margin of error, is win by 4%.
Yet, he won by > 5%.
Therefore, his final tally was OUT OF THE MARGIN OF ERROR.
2/27/2011 11:26 pm
Archivist said: Union issue. Bet you didn't know that.
The cause doesn't matter. It's not a nationally accredited school.
2/27/2011 11:25 pm
. said: Copy and pasted from: http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf
Did you really think you could pass off all those big words as your own?
That wasn't the intention. You said my mathematics were wrong. You were wrong.
Reid won OUTSIDE the margin of error. Understand?
2/27/2011 11:17 pm
. said: Son, you're still under the truly retarded impression statistics apply to the SPREAD between choices. Or are you so embarrassed about getting owned on that, you're still trying to insist that's how statistics works?
In horse-race polls, we want to know the difference in proportions supporting the top two candidates (and perhaps between other pairs) and we need the confidence interval
for this difference to tell if the lead is statistically significant (or “outside the margin of error”). Often pollsters, journalists and political scientists calculate this as twice the reported margin of error of the poll. This is done following the logic that if one candidate 2 is at 55% and the other at 45% and the poll has a ±5% margin of error, then the first candidate could be as low as 55−5 = 50% and the second could be as high as 45+5 = 50%.
In this case reporters would say the race was a statistical dead heat because the gap between the candidates (55 − 45 = 10%) is not more than two times the margin of error of the poll (5%). While this is the correct conclusion when there are only two possible survey responses, it is not correct when there are more than two possible responses, which is in fact virtually always the case. How much difference this makes depends on how many responses are outside the two categories of interest.
2/27/2011 11:11 pm
. said: Funny how you single out "he last three polls on that list", considering they all happen to be the earliest polls. Instead of, say, the latest polls before the election, which sane people pay more attention to.
Like I said, in the last two weeks she was trending DOWNWARD. You just proved it. Thanks!
The last five indicate Angle ahead with 3.2%, averaged. Average out the last five before that, and the last five before that.
Calculate a moving average.
You will see that the moving average increased over time, showing that she was "trending" ahead.
2/27/2011 11:05 pm
Wow... even with the solution right in front of you, you're too dumb to read it.
Read it again, slower:
Polls measure the support for each candidate in a slate of choices, not the SPREAD BETWEEN THEM.
Yeah, with a 3.5% percent margin of error, plus or minus.
Reid won outside the margin of error. It is not my math that is wrong, it is yours.
2/27/2011 11:04 pm
. said: Except her polls were trending steadily DOWNWARD in the two weeks before the election:
How is it you manage to fuck something up, in every single post?
10/31/2010 PPP 47% 46%
10/30/2010 Fox News 48% 45%
10/27/2010 Mason Dixon 49% 45%
10/25/2010 Rasmussen 49% 45%
10/26/2010 CNN 49% 45%
The last five different polls. Average them, she is ahead by 3.2%, with the last three polls on that list showing that she was ahead by 4%.
She was trending ahead of Reid in the last two weeks of polls.
2/27/2011 11:00 pm
. said: OK. Polls measure the support for each candidate in a slate of choices, not the SPREAD BETWEEN THEM, you mongoloid idiot. If the margin of error is 3.5%, and it happens to be off by 3.5%, the spread will be 7%. Which you're saying is statistically impossible. Even though it means such an error MUST happen at least 5% of the time, even if it were a scientifically sound measurement, which a poll isn't. AND even though you failed to take into account undecideds and third parties.
In short, you're a moron.
Sharron Angle at 2.7%: Wins by 6.2%, loses by .8%.
Actual results: Sharron Angle loses by > 5%.
95% chance she'd lose by .8% at the very worst, but actually lost by > 5%. That is out of the margin of error.
2/27/2011 10:54 pm
Archivist said: The only difference between your school and mine was the distinct lack of union stooge professors at mine.
And a little matter of accreditation
2/27/2011 10:51 pm
Archivist said: Didn't you last less than a semester in college?
We won't go into the fake wife, fake personnas, fake job thing quite yet.
He runs a business and has a fulltime job. Kudos to him.
2/27/2011 10:50 pm
Archivist said: Disinformation/Innuendo
I had a diploma before you were in grade school.
Dot matrix printed diplomas don't count.
2/27/2011 10:49 pm
I chose the first link which showed one poll (out of three) with her being 4% ahead.
Look at the graph supplied at the other link, showing her trending ahead of Reid. The end result was him beating her by a substantial margin.
2/27/2011 10:40 pm
. said: Thanks for proving your "4% right before the election" claim was wrong. Even though you're trying to avoid admitting the MOST recent poll before the election had a 1% difference.
Now, you still haven't figured out your truly retarded math error, that shows you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. In fact, you just proved it again. Come on Gomer, think hard!
That was an average of three polls, one of which showed her 4% ahead.
The burden of proof is upon you to show me where I have made this "math error".
2/27/2011 10:37 pm
. said: Of course it's for the resources, but we just don't steal them like countries did in the old days. We set up American companies to control the resources, and they make huge profits that can be used to bribe the politicians. Lots of benefit for the elites, but not so much for the taxpayers and soldiers.
Where is the evidence that American companies are actually acquiring these resources? Has Hallburton tapped into Iraq's Oil and is now controlling the flow?
2/27/2011 10:35 pm
Archivist said: Very similar to your education.
You admitted that you spent $25k for your Humboldt degree, but you dropped out the last semester because the general education requirements were too hard.
2/27/2011 10:33 pm
Here is one that averaged three polls and came out with 2.7% ahead for angle, yet on election day, Reid won by 5.6%. The difference is 7.3%.
2/27/2011 10:30 pm
. said: Wrong. Even if you take the whole WEEK before the election, polls ranged from a 1% to a 3% difference.
BTW, you STILL haven't figured out the massively stupid error you made a few posts ago. Want a hint before you embarrass yourself further?
The first poll I googled "sharron angle poll" showed her being 4% ahead.
In most polls she was approximately 4% ahead, including the day before.
Most certainly, point out this error.
2/27/2011 10:24 pm
Propaganda? In an election for federal office? Have you alerted the police?
You sure are twisting and backpedaling to explain why your claim about "statistically impossible" was wrong. In reality, Angle was polling at 47% just before the election, and ended up with 44.6%, well within the margin of error.
Next time you try to pretend you know what you're talking about, leave out the butthurt about your own bias and outrage at the results. Then someone might take you seriously
The average poll right before the election showed her to be 4% ahead.
2/27/2011 10:19 pm
Katalyst said: True, he just can't resist.
Why are we over there?
that is fucking funny haha