Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fuzzymath who wrote (3725)	10/27/2000 1:38:40 AM
From: Ben Wa	Respond to of 10042

Hadassah for President. 2004. Oy vey, we'll put new curtains in the Lincoln bedroom, even Lincoln wouldn't recognize it.

To: fuzzymath who wrote (3725)	10/27/2000 5:28:59 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

More fuzzymath by AlGore the Junior: AlGore the Junior - Cheez wiz, not math wiz: Gore's fuzzy math Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore gave himself a self-inflicted wound in his "fuzzy math" campaign battle with Republican rival George W. Bush, misstating the size of a trillion, Reuters reports. Criticizing Mr. Bush's Social Security partial-privatization plan at a rally Wednesday in Tennessee, Mr. Gore said, "He is proposing to privatize a big part of Social Security and he's proposing to take $1 trillion, a million billion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund and give it as a tax incentive to young workers." A trillion is one thousand billion, not a million billion. Mr. Gore added: "I know that one and one equals two, but how do you give the same one trillion to two different groups of people. It doesn't add up unless you're using fuzzy math," he said. washtimes.com

To: fuzzymath who wrote (3725)	10/27/2000 9:15:31 AM
From: Howard Clark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Portrait of America poll tightened overnight to a 4 point Bush lead from a 7 point lead. Since this poll has the greatest weighting in your consolidated poll, it should change your numbers significantly. Presidential races usually tighten in the last week or two but I think you have to go back to 1948 to find an election where the underdog caught all the way up to the frontrunner on election day. Bush will win (narrowly).

To: fuzzymath who wrote (3725)	10/27/2000 10:27:11 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Personally, I think the short-term polls are BS, if not down-right manipulated by their compilers. Like any good game, the media thrives on creating the impression that this race is more volatile than it actually is. So much of polling is subjective upon deriving a broad enough base of participants from across the country. Those types of polls take time to execute, and certainly are less volatile than short-term, spontaneous polling based on relatively small groups of individuals numbering under 1,000. Any statistician will tell us that when the sample group is smaller, the variations are more extreme from top to bottom. Broaden the sampling base and the poll becomes more credible. Kinda similar to the media failing to report the 271 page rand report on education advances in Texas, despite the fact that it was quite thorough and underwent peer review. Yet they will dedicate inordinate amounts of air time to a 14 page non-reviewed, non-detailed working paper that claims Texas education standards are terrible. This is sound bite, rhetorical, propaganda at its worst... and the polling procedures are no less guilty of participating in these less than scientific stunts. And btw, if you all doubt Texas' education record, you have only to look at the praise that the White House heaped on their advances (notably showing their partisan bent by failing to provide any credit to Bush) Regards, Ron Regards, Ron