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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Smith who wrote (41446)	11/15/2000 6:40:51 PM
From: dan6	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

Is anyone out there familiar with the statistical concept of "significant difference" that determines at different confidence levels (usually 95% or two standard deviations) whether two samples are different? When we vote, we are basically sampling the voting population. The problem we have with very close elections, is that there is no "significant difference" statistically between the candidates. Whether one candidate beats the other in Florida by 10 votes or 1000, I suspect statistically (without actually doing the math) it is still a dead heat. Of course democracy doesnt really care about statistics. But if democracy's goal is to find representatives to reflect the will of the people, then we have a situation where statistically neither candidate is reflecting the will of the people. There is only one reasonable solution: a co-presidency. Bush gets the West Wing, Gore the East Wing (or vice versa)(The West Wing might already be occupied...) Let Bush/Gore work out deals over doughnuts and then we will really have representational democracy at work. (Joking at the end; serious at the beginning)

To: Joe Smith who wrote (41446)	11/16/2000 12:51:16 AM
From: maverick61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Joe - sorry if my post of that news appeared partisan. I did include the full link of the story - from a very reliable news source. I just highlighted the sections of the poll results and the story I personally found interesting. Part of this was because it seemes public opinion has changed. Over the weekend - neither man in the public opinion polls seemed to hold any advantage. But these new polls seemed to show a dramatic shift in sentiment, and IMO, a feeling that the American public is growing weary and wants this thing wrapped up soon. Actually, my belief is that it was indeed these polls which caused Gore to come on TV late today and make the statement and offer that he did. We all know this is a PR game, and IMO his statement was an attempt to try to sway public opinion back in his favor (just like each competing statement from each side has been). The timing seems quite suspect - after staying silent for about a week - Gore finally decides to speak out the day the polls show public sentiment going against him. Wouldn't you agree?