Replies

Polls legitimately use normalization; the crux of my argument, and that is a verifiable public fact. Something you denied, then later admitted (by admitting that models were used) without realizing it because you didn't know what normalization is. You were wrong. Then you tried to back-pedal. Deal. Repeating the same red herrings and phantom arguments doesn't make you right. It's also a clever but failed tactic to straw man me into saying that I supported or 'believed' in Newsweak polling. Never said that. Deal.

It is YOU that is compactly wrong and doesn't know what a weighted model is -

I said in my FIRST post on this thread that Newsweek used an incorrect weighted model - Get that??? -

Yet, in your own words above - you suggest I didn't say this.....Where are you from?? -

In my first post (and in about every post after that) I have said Newsweek used an incorrect weighted model?? -

How can you suggest I didn't say that....then switched and said they did?? -

You are nuts - and you have been made a fool by your continued insistence that Newsweek is a reliable polling place - It is not!! - And anyone in the bizz knows this -

Obviously you've never taken a statistics class, or you flunked it. Normalization has nothing to do with being "normal" (now THAT was laughable).

That was a joke on my part - The "normal" comment - But obviously you didn't get it - (and to think I almost took that out...knowing it would go over your head) -

Again, understand that Newsweek polls are junk - they used an incorrect weighted model - Period! -

Facts mean things - and Newsweek used an incorrect model - This is clear -

Wow, lots of red herrings. Congratulations, you've won about 5 arguments in that post with yourself. I never argued any of that. Read carefully. I stated that typically polls use normalization to get correct results and that you can't assume that because the number of Reps and Dems called is different, that that alone means that they are weighted wrong. They can only be weighted wrong if the normalization is invalid; i.e. the 'models' you finally conceded existed are wrong. You did NOT claim that at first, only that the weighting was 'incorrect'. That tells us nothing about whether or not you believe normalization, or models, were used. Furthermore, if you concede models were used AND that the weighting is incorrect then it is then incumbent upon you to prove why the model is invalid. You never did this. You just pretty much ignored the discussion of normalization. An incorrect weighting could occur if, say, they were simply too lazy to get the numbers right and they never used models at all. Why is that so complicated for you to understand? Now, honestly, do you really know what normalization is? Do you understand that there are many kinds of normalization, some of which may have nothing to do with voter turnout? I'm really curious as to your educational background at this point. So, I'm from Earth, where are you from? Fool, Stupid, Nuts? Gee, I thought there was a policy here about name-calling? I guess that means I have a green light to unleash the same on you?