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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (460149)	9/16/2003 10:03:51 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

70%? Do you even have a link for that? More hyperbole? ~SB~

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (460149)	9/16/2003 10:23:41 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Most impressions come from putting the pieces together. It is a process that most functional brains can handle. I am under the impression, for instance, that OJ was guilty. Certainly Saddam was not totally responsible, but, also certainly, he aided and abetted.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (460149)	9/16/2003 10:28:26 PM
From: Vitas	Respond to of 769670

Are you within the definition of "all" -lol- Message 19285319

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (460149)	9/16/2003 10:50:48 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

So then let me ask you this....how do you suppose 70% of the country got the impression that Saddam was responsible for 9-11? Where did they get their info?? I think they mainline the Lala Times Field Poll Blasts Times Poll: The people who run the Field Poll not only think the L.A. Times poll (showing Davis on the verge of beating the recall) is full of it, they think the L.A. Times' defensive explanation for why its poll is different is also full of it! And they make a powerful case. The LAT's David Lauter had attempted to explain the difference by noting that Field had more "moderates" while the Times poll had more self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives." But Field notes that you can't compare these two numbers--the polls use different questions to classify people ideologically, and if you'd asked the Field questions to the Times' sample you might well have gotten lots of moderates too. ... The real difference, Field argues, is that the LAT for some reason seems to have wildly oversampled non-white non-Latinos--i.e. blacks and Asians. Blacks are the most reliable recall opponents, and they seem to have driven the poll resulst in Davis' favor. The Times hides this flaw by failing to even report the black and Asian subgroups separately. Why did the size of the unreported racial/ethnic subgroups in the latest Times Poll amount to 18%, when according to its own exit poll, blacks and Asian voters combined comprised just 10% of all voters in the last general election? Did the Times Poll sample include a proportionate number of black/African-Americans or a disproportionately large number whose inclusion, due to their strong opposition to the recall, could have skewed their poll results? It's probably not the Asians who were lopsidedly pro-recall, Field notes, since they "historically tend to be more divided in their voting preferences on partisan matters." This is a pretty convincing indictment. It resonates with the suspicion--hard to believe, but always present with the PC Times--that the results were somehow intentionally skewed. I would think the LAT would have to respond. ... While they are at it, they might reveal to their readers Mystery Questions 3 and 4--the questions, right before the crucial recall question, that the Times pollsters for some reason skip over in their published report. Maybe these are harmless "likely voter" screens--but why shouldn't Times readers learn about them too? You've got to be transparent if people are suspicious of you, no? The beauty part is that many recall opponents--including perhaps the Times own editorial board--seem to have actually believed the polls suggestion that Davis was about to beat the recall, and as a result they are hostile to the Ninth Circuit's postponement of the election. So the Ninth Circuit faces opposition from both recall proponents, who think they were about to win, and opponents, who (foolishly believing the LAT poll) think they were about to win. Both groups can't be right, of course--it's a zero-sum game. But their mutually-contradictory confidence can make it very uncomfortable for any Ninth Circuit 11-judge "en banc" panel that reconsiders the decision to postpone the election. ... P.S.: If you don't think appellate courts pay attention to editorials and other indicators of the public mood, you haven't clerked on an appellate court. ... 1:23 P.M.