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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (13571)	10/23/2003 10:20:33 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793600

A Pollster explains why he is wrong. :>) _______________________________________ THE POLLSTERS Mark Mellman Voter status and the pollsters Pity the pollsters. We have an even tougher job than most survey researchers. They have to obtain a random sample of a clearly defined universe — kids, seniors or cancer survivors. That is difficult enough. But political pollsters need to survey a universe — voters — that does not even exist at the time we poll. People are either over 65 or under 18, or not. However, their status as voters is not fixed until the polls close. Pollsters have long touted their skills at finding “likely voters.” Some even brag that they focus on “perfect” voters —those who vote in every election. Much of this is hooey. Many pollsters will use one or more “screening questions” to allegedly ascertain who is and is not a “likely voter.” The balance of the survey is then administered to those who are judged to be “likely voters,” while the rest get a polite hang-up. Two sets of problems emerge. First, how good are the screening questions at ascertaining likelihood of voting? Not very. Of course, all pollsters say their screens are “well tested” and they “work.” But have they gone back, after the election, to determine how many of those who passed or failed their screening test did or did not actually vote? No. Academic researchers have undertaken such studies in the fairly distant past, with less than encouraging results. Because it is a socially desirable behavior, the intent to vote is overreported. But even if screening questions could really separate “likely” from “unlikely” voters, then what? Most pollsters get rid of “unlikely voters.” Why count those who won’t show up at the polls? But “likely” and “unlikely” are statements about the probability of voting, not absolutes. A “likely” voter may have an 80 percent chance of going to the polls, and an “unlikely” voter only a 20 percent chance of showing up. That means out of every 100 “likely voters,” 20 will stay home. Out of every 100 “unlikely voters,” 20 will cast a ballot. Thus it is possible to have an electorate that consists significantly of “unlikely voters.” That is not just a theoretical possibility; it is an objective reality. One of the most popular ways of defining “likely voters” is to ask whether the respondent voted in the last election. Those who say “yes” are “likely voters” and kept in the sample; those who say “no” are deemed “unlikely” and discarded. Let’s ignore the first problem we discussed and assume the answers are correct. How well does past voting define the likely electorate? In 2000, 66 percent of California voters had voted in the presidential election four years before. But 34 percent of the electorate were “unlikely” voters by that criterion. Only 56 percent were “perfect” voters having participated in both ’96 and ’98. Perhaps more troubling for this method, nearly a quarter (23 percent) of Californians who cast a ballot in 2000 had not voted in either 1996 or 1998. California is not unique. In Pennsylvania, 24 percent of 2000 voters had not participated in either 1996 or 1998. In Colorado, only 47 percent of 2000 voters had cast ballots in both ’96 and ’98, while 28 percent had not voted in either prior election. Could misreading the “likely electorate” have contributed to 2002 polls’ being off in Colorado? Our real goal is not so much to determine who is a likely voter but to ascertain what the likely electorate will look like. Another reason to pity the pollsters — so much time and effort expended chasing after the wrong goal. Of course, there are better ways to model the likely electorate, but I’m not going to give them away in a column that comes free with your subscription. Mark S. Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. thehill.com

To: Ish who wrote (13571)	10/24/2003 4:37:32 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793600

Terri's Life isn't Worth a Plug Nickel - Her Death is Worth Thousands By April Shenandoah This Article Published 10. 23. 03 at 23:49 Sierra Time When I first heard of Terri Schindler Schiavo's plight, I stopped in my tracks and prayed for a miracle. Sickened by the story, I became emotionally involved as many Americans have. After a long battle to save her life, by her parents, and husband Michael Schiavo's determination to euthanize his wife by starvation - the battle ended October 15, 2003 when Terri's feeding tube was removed. God Bless Florida's Governor, Jeb Bush, for getting a new ruling passed that allowed the feeding tube to be replaced (after she was off it for six days). Video tape shown on national television - clearly shows that Terri definitely is not in a vegetative state, as the husband, the doctors, and the media have been describing her. She responds to her family with expressions, and has even been taught to say "yeah" to answer yes to their questions. Speech pathologist, Sara Green Mele, said, "based on my experience and my observations, Mrs. Schiavo is clearly aware of her environment and interacts with it, albeit inconsistently. She is able to comprehend spoken language, and can, at least inconsistently, follow simple commands. It is my opinion, that Terri would benefit from speech-language therapy, and physical therapy. Her quality of life can be significantly enhanced." Terri's family and other observers feel that she has the capability to swallow, therefore eat by mouth. Affidavits were sent to probate Judge George W. Greer requesting him to allow a swallowing test, which he denied. It boggles the mind how the facts of this case have been blatantly ignored by those making Terri's "life and death" decision. Her husband has never allowed his wife any form of rehabilitation or comfort. He claims that she does not want to be kept alive by artificial means (she is not hooked to a respirator), how artificial is feeding a person? Terri initially arrived at the hospital with broken bones (bone scans show she was severely beaten) but curiously was treated for a heart attack. Somehow Mr. Schiavo manages to elude suspicion. Concerned said husband, is living openly with another woman and their child, with another one on the way. When pictures of family and friends were placed in Terri's room, they were promptly removed. Clothes her Mother bought for her were taken away never to be seen again. Terri was not even allowed outside without the permission of Mr. Schiavo. Terri's two cats, of five years, were euthanized by this same loving husband. He is in line to inherit $750K that was awarded to her via a medical malpractice lawsuit - he was awarded $300,000 in damages. The compensation was intended for Terri's medical treatment and therapy -- which was never permitted. If anyone had an abnormal brain condition, it was the ones calling the "barbaric" shots at "The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast" in Largo, Florida. According to an article written by Becki Snow, in November of 2002, she calls the Hospice "nothing more than a Death Factory." It came to her attention that George J. Felos, Past Chairman of the Hospice's Board of Directors, and attorney for Mr. Schiavo, is a self-described "right-to-die" advocate. Felos was the official but unseen hand of the Hospice - and he advocates death for those in his care. Snow continued (2002) -- the death Felos has prescribed for Terri starts with a ban on all but the most basic physical care - the once beautiful woman rots in her "Hospice of the Florida Suncoast" bed; Terri's advocates claim her teeth are unbrushed, her nails untrimmed, her infections untreated. This was not always the case - even after her brain injury, Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, kept her groomed and pretty. Now Terri's parents have been safely removed so as to avoid "false hope." All media and medical access is tightly controlled by Mr. Schiavo and Felos. Update October 2003: With the replacing of the feeding tube, Mr. Husband has ordered NO VISITORS for Terri, keeping her parents away, once again. This is inhumane! Mr. Schiavo needs legally, or bodily, removed from this situation! [I have personally witnessed forced starvation in hospitals, and convalescent homes. Families are usually oblivious to the non-care, drugging, and finally starvation of their loved ones. Euthanasia is common practice!]