Donate Today!
Posted on 11/13/2011 2:58:45 PM PST by Steelfish
“and we are to believe the numbers represent scientific evidence.”
What’s funny is that the article actually admits that the poll is not scientifically conclusive but instead “instructive.”
Newt can take a billion dollars and advertise to hell freezes over and he will still lose the female vote. Plus the majority of the religious right. He will get less votes than insane McCain. That is just a fact of life.
It’s worse than that. It’s a resampling of 102 of 248 Republican respondents. IOW, a subset of a subset. The margin of error has to be huge.
The fix has been in for decades. All our little Republican primary voters know to do is back the candidate “whose turn it is.”
You are right of course. Many judge candidates not on intellect but appearance. The American people nearly always let us down.
From my stat education I recall that small samples can be very significant if drawn from a valid representative portion of the total population. It is this feature that determines the reliability of extrapolation to the population. It is this feature also which dishonest persons manipulate.
I already have over 184 votes in the poll I’m doing right now, and my poll is open for another 36 hours or so.
I’m hoping to get over 1000 votes, so please spread the word — ping your friends!
Here’s my poll, for anyone who hasn’t taken it yet:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2806879/posts
If it’s Romney who gets the nominee we’ve let ourselves down because the primaries are when the base has the biggest voice.
cindie
Save that prediction...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.