• but people are still going to lie based on the argument you make above.

    see below.  i'm not being as facetious as you think.

    you're the polling expert.  what do you do about people who don't answer truthfully?

    but.  more crucial to this discussion is NOT what you do about people who don't answer in complete truthness about their participation level, but do you apply those same considerations to people who respond "obama" or "edwards."?

    that's my main question.  and i think that's a very serious question.  i don't ask it lightly.

  • Yes.  You define a dataset.  And then you maintain randomness within that dataset.

    So.... genius.... how are you going to isolate the dataset you're looking for?

    what do you do?  What's the script?!

    "Hi.  I'm conducting a poll and would like to ask a few questions."

    "Ok.  Shoot."

    "Did you give money to a candidate this year?"

    "yes."

    "Ok.  Were you lying when you just said 'yes.'?"

    "yes."

    "Good.  Thanks!"

  • randomness doesn't mean you poll the entire country to figure out what the temp is for voters in illinois or amongst democrats.

    you can define data sets and also maintain strict standards of randomness within the confines of that dataset.

    which is i guess another question for mr. bowers, how does he intend to isolate the dataset he's looking for and then maintain randomness within that dataset?

    he merely suggests a way to magically erase the data that puts hillary (for the time being) ahead in the existing polls.

  • comment on a post Revisiting the Hackett Litmus Test over 7 years ago

    as far as this litmus test is concerned?

    at least in the update it's admitted that a litmus test in which hillary fails is biassed against women.

    that it is, indeed, a problem.

  • You're interpretting them.

    The results are that hillary is ahead in the polls (for the time being) and your argument seeks to render those results invalid.  or at least faulty cause they use a sample set -- or includes data -- that you would not choose.

    it's no mystery that CHOOSING different sample sets gets different results.  

    the goal in any poll is to take that CHOICE and render it inert.  to be random.

    the polls you are questioning don't make that choice.   there is a goal of some randomness.  i'm no expert but i understand the goal is to take a random sample set.  not a CHOSEN sample set.

    and if you've noticed, i won't say if this is impartial or partial or not.   i'll say it's completely impartial, and just say that it's based on a cynical misreading of the american public.  you are underestimating people who respond "hillary" on the polls in question.

    i can't tell if that's engaging the debate or not?

    it might eventually just get to the point where any disagreement at all is going to be viewed as a refusal to participate in debate.

    which would be wierd.

    so.  can i at least say i disagree without inpugning your integrity?

    lastly.  trend lines are going to put obama on top in the next few months anyway.  the trending is enough on this issue.

    and then we'll have to wonder if obama's support is over-inflated because 30% of THOSE respondents want to believe their participation in the political process is more extensive than it is..

    you see.  that's what clues me in to some partiality (IF it indeed does exist!).  the assumption that what you point out above about the american people and their involvement in american politics doesn't apply to any of the other dem candidates.

    it might, you know!

  • comment on a post Social Pressure and Inaccurate Polling over 7 years ago

    I mean if it comes to actually banning me or others over this issue, fine, not seeing 5 snide things being said about Clinton a day may be a good thing I can live with in the long run.

    Despite the other good info I find here.

    I don't know if this is even partial or impartial or not.

    All I know is that you're saying that hillary supporters are more likely to lie and not be engaged in the political process.

    great.  edwards and obama supporters are more likely to be hypocrites and condescending towards the rest of the country.  and, you're right.  they may turn out to turn out in droves for their candidate.  and all those people responding for clinton in those polls will just stay at home watching american idol.

    who's being elite here, chris?

  • on a comment on Dodd's Carbon Tax Proposal over 7 years ago

    Thank you.

    It appears chris and matt are incapable of talking about anything without dissing a clinton.

    i know this is how one boosts up cred in the blogosphere, but it's getting out of hand.

    Here is a very informative diary:


    It's hard not to like Chris Dodd, especially when he keeps making so much sense.  Dodd's plan on a corporate carbon tax is here.

    This country has serious serious problems and it's going to take global cooperation the likes of which we've never seen or even imagined to have a chance of solving them.  One of the steps along the way is to consider structural changes to our economy so that spewing carbon into the atmosphere is expensive.  

    This isn't just a plan, either.  This is one area where jawboning actually has an effect, as we've seen with private equity groups taking over energy producers and shuttering their carbon spewing plans.  Energy planning cycles are 20-30 years long, so industry people tend to try and anticipate and plan around probable legislative initiatives.  A carbon tax is something Wall Street has been anticipating for some time, which means that capital risk to polluting industries is going to increase.  This is especially true when a Presidential candidate puts it on the table for debate.  And lest we forget, Dodd is the Chair of the Banking Committee, which has pretty broad sweep on currency issues.  

    Anyway, since MyDD has become obscure-but-very-important-policy blog, I'd figure I'd mention this.  A carbon tax hasn't been seriously considered since 1993.  And now it's in the Presidential race.

    here's the same diary written by someone trying to get ahold of some of the my left wing crowd:


    It's hard not to like Chris Dodd, especially when he keeps making so much sense.  Dodd's plan on a corporate carbon tax is here.

    This country has serious serious problems and it's going to take global cooperation the likes of which we've never seen or even imagined to have a chance of solving them.  One of the steps along the way is to consider structural changes to our economy so that spewing carbon into the atmosphere is expensive.  

    This isn't just a plan, either.  This is one area where jawboning actually has an effect, as we've seen with private equity groups taking over energy producers and shuttering their carbon spewing plans.  Energy planning cycles are 20-30 years long, so industry people tend to try and anticipate and plan around probable legislative initiatives.  A carbon tax is something Wall Street has been anticipating for some time, which means that capital risk to polluting industries is going to increase.  This is especially true when a Presidential candidate puts it on the table for debate.  And lest we forget, Dodd is the Chair of the Banking Committee, which has pretty broad sweep on currency issues.  

    Anyway, since MyDD has become obscure-but-very-important-policy blog, I'd figure I'd mention this.  A carbon tax hasn't been seriously considered since Clinton sold out Democratic members of Congress on the BTU tax in 1993.  And now it's in the Presidential race.

  • comment on a post Dodd's Carbon Tax Proposal over 7 years ago

    What a stupid comment.

    Just can't make a good post without dissing a Clinton.

    When Dodd's president and he has to make a concession on this issue as well to get something passed, then you can call him a sell out too.

    now that mydd has such influence.  anyway.

  • comment on a post Are We Worse Than Freepers in our Discussions? over 7 years ago

    A year or so ago, before McCain lost the last remains of credibility he had left, he was on the daily show and was asked what he thought of cheney trying to defend torture.  of all people who knew torture wouldn't get you what you want, mccain would be that person.

    he would not, jon stewart tried three times, he would not take the bait.  he said it three times, "we disagree, dick cheney is doing what he honestly believes is best for america and he and i respectfully disagree."

    and that was it.

    we're incapable of that.  we must call each other cowards.

    look at how the dlc refers to the netroots.  it's sad.  it reflects very badly on them that they have to make snide comments about people's patriotism, and shit like that.

    now people are gonna love i said that.

    people aren't gonna love this:

    now look at how feingold (before reid and he struck common gound over the last couple weeks) described other dems in congress who disagreed with feingold about the war.  it wasn't that other dems disagreed with him, 2 years ago he would not have had the maturity to simply say "harry reid is doing what he honestly believes is right for america, and on this issue, we disagree."  no.  he had to say things like "dems crawled in their foxholes."

    and shit like that.

    you are right.  there is a stark contrast here.

    republicans disagree.  democrats not only disagree, they smear each other.  everything follows from a fundamentally flawed assumption:  all liberals secretly agree on everything.  any disagreement stems from a lack of resolve or a selfish malignant motivation.

    it's sad.  on this issue we, all of us, are worse than the republican party.  i've even done it too myself.  the tendency to believe that everyone can see exactly what you see in the world but they lack the resolve to say so is a distinctly liberal progressive thing to be prone to.

    i don't know why.  probably precisely because most of the time we are basically right.  about everything.

    all i know is this war for the soul of the democratic party is CRUSHING the soul of the democratic party.

  • cause i just acknowledged the warning.

    Maybe if the invective against hillary wasn't pitched at such an angle across the entire blogosphere.  if the movement as a whole wasn't so defiantly against one particular candidate.. if the mission weren't, so to speak, to defeat the clintons, if there was never any tendency to pile on, ... then such an analysis from a blogosphere icon such as yourself would not be viewed through that lens.

    having read the lamont piece, i have a better perspective, but i still regard the notion of impartiality -- most especially during this primary -- very skeptically.  cause if one wants clinton to lose, one is simply more inclined to ask themselves, when seeing a poll showing clinton with a big lead:  "well.   is that right?"  "is there something wrong with the poll?"

    and if edwards or richardson showed up with a huge lead -- for whatever reason -- hey.  why look a gift horse in the mouth?  that's good momentum.  

    that's a less snarky way to put my comment above.  if clinton was suddenly trailing by 10 in the polls there is less tendency to question the polls.

    let me take this one step further.  james carville was attacked for not being labelled a "Clinton supporter" by cnn.  it became necessary for CNN to acknowledge the fact that Carville wants hillary to win and force all of his analysis to be viewed through that lens.

    i think you see where i'm going with this.  and while it might be different because carville is on a national broadcast and you're just on a blog, the end result is the same, rendering carville's analysis (impugning his integrity?) to nil except viewed through the lens of his partiality.

    what's funny though, carville was criticizing obama's performance at the health care forum in Nevada.  which was actually a valid criticism.  

    turns out, maybe your analysis above is equally valid.  

  • comment on a post Malcolm X as a Model for Progressives over 7 years ago

    Malcolm X was quick to distrust other black leaders who didn't meet certain standards of purity:


    "He got the peace prize, we got the problem.... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over."

    but he also said this:


    "Dr. King wants the same thing I want -- freedom!"

    a complex man.

  • terrorists aren't fighting in iraq.

    religious sects are.

    terrorists are recruiting in iraq.

  • none of this would be necessary.

    but she is.  so the polls must be wrong.

  • none of this would be necessary.

    but she is.  so the polls must be wrong.

  • comment on a post During Which Post the Matts Argue Iraq over 7 years ago

    and see who wins.

    but we're not getting out of iraq.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= -5308196622692748202

    stoller's absolutism:  You can't say you're bringing the troops home unless you're bringing every single last troop home, I still think it's politically immature.  I think most people in america have told themselves if you bring home 70-80% of the troops, redeploy them to other parts of the world and take those that stay in iraq off the streets, then that qualifies as "bringing them home", and "ending the war."

    It doesn't qualify as far as Mr. Stoller is concerned and that bugs me less than it did a week ago.  

    mr. yglesias seems to think you can catch a terrorist hiding in iraq with troops stationed in qatar.

    I don't agree.

    If you agree that there is a counter-terrorism mission left to be fulfilled in iraq (and i understand not everyone does, but matt y. seems to, and so does obama), then i don't see how you can complete that mission without having troops stationed in iraq.  on bases.  out of harm's way.

    lastly.  matt y. writes:


    The issue, to me, is that flexibility is a double-edged sword. In the hands of a good president, it's a good thing. In the hands of a bad president, it's a bad thing. This is why one needs a good president.

    this is great wisdom.  and it can apply to troops remaining in iraq as well as anywhere else.

    while not greeted as liberators, our troops were not greeted as enemies at first either.  so how did it come to pass that they became the enemy?  the policies of a bad president.  while there may be a lot of water under the bridge, it's fair to say that the policies of a good president would create a mission for soldiers remaining in iraq that would change their standing in iraq.

    the idea that any residual force would per force have to remain defined as an OCCUPYING force is still, i'm sorry, an ideologically driven assessment.  or rather it has something to do with that overton window or something, who knows?

    anyway.  we're not getting out of iraq.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= -5308196622692748202

Diaries

Advertise Blogads