<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shifting Tides</title>
	<atom:link href="http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/</link>
	<description>Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:24:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jrogge</title>
		<link>http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161723</link>
		<dc:creator>jrogge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161723</guid>
		<description>The numbers in this poll are one &quot;riveting&quot; speech away from changing again. This sort of topic is too unstable to scientifically measure with a single poll. This is why Gallup constantly does this sort of poll, because a major event changes everything.

Also what means of party identification are you using? Did they check &quot;Republican&quot; in a box on the quiz or did they choose responses that &quot;would be republican choices&quot;?

Also how were the questions worded?

Do you support:
A: tax cuts to large corporations and across the bpoard to help stimulate the economy and create jobs?

B: raising taxes stifling revenue, cutting off income to big business resulting in fewer jobs, and helping Hitler. Do you like Hitler you commie hippie?

If the questions are worded this way chances are you got a republican result as well. Many of these polls are written this way, although I exaggerated the effect is the same.

&lt;em&gt;I think, as my ex- recently said to me, the attempt by Dems to make McCain into Bush II was a serious mistake, because no one with an IQ over 6 (her words) will buy that.&lt;/em&gt;

I agree with her, how anyone can equate McCain with Bush is beyond me. Even if he supports some of the same policies, &quot;more of the same&quot; isn&#039;t accurate enough of a description of what is going on to sway the voter into a &quot;more Bush&quot; scare IMO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The numbers in this poll are one &quot;riveting&quot; speech away from changing again. This sort of topic is too unstable to scientifically measure with a single poll. This is why Gallup constantly does this sort of poll, because a major event changes everything.</p>
<p>Also what means of party identification are you using? Did they check &quot;Republican&quot; in a box on the quiz or did they choose responses that &quot;would be republican choices&quot;?</p>
<p>Also how were the questions worded?</p>
<p>Do you support:<br />
A: tax cuts to large corporations and across the bpoard to help stimulate the economy and create jobs?</p>
<p>B: raising taxes stifling revenue, cutting off income to big business resulting in fewer jobs, and helping Hitler. Do you like Hitler you commie hippie?</p>
<p>If the questions are worded this way chances are you got a republican result as well. Many of these polls are written this way, although I exaggerated the effect is the same.</p>
<p><em>I think, as my ex- recently said to me, the attempt by Dems to make McCain into Bush II was a serious mistake, because no one with an IQ over 6 (her words) will buy that.</em></p>
<p>I agree with her, how anyone can equate McCain with Bush is beyond me. Even if he supports some of the same policies, &quot;more of the same&quot; isn&#8217;t accurate enough of a description of what is going on to sway the voter into a &quot;more Bush&quot; scare IMO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean Esmay</title>
		<link>http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161712</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Esmay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161712</guid>
		<description>Well that&#039;s pretty fair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well that&#8217;s pretty fair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin L. Shoemaker</title>
		<link>http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161711</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161711</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;I respect the scientific validity of polls more than our friend Martin...&lt;/em&gt;


Doubtful. I&#039;ve studied too much stats to doubtÂ well-constructed polls. I just disrespect the scientific validity of &lt;em&gt;these&lt;/em&gt; polls, or at least the reporting of these polls. With swings so large, a good statistician would be busily designing a new experiment to explain the discrepancy; but the reporters either ignore the swings, or else &quot;explain&quot; them without any real evidence behind the explanations.


I have pretty good confidence in Gallup and Rasmussen. Less in Zogby, because his swings tend to be wider and he&#039;s more of an outlierÂ (though that gives him cred when the outlier happens to be right, like in 2000). But I have less confidence in the reporting.


&lt;em&gt;...itâ€™s long been obvious that most Americans vote first and foremost for the candidate, not the party. &lt;/em&gt;


And then, or so it seems, they inverse cause-and-effect as it&#039;s commonly reported. They seem to report party identification that lines up with their candidate choice. A lot of pundits assume the exact opposite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>I respect the scientific validity of polls more than our friend Martin&#8230;</em></p>
<p>Doubtful. I&#8217;ve studied too much stats to doubtÂ well-constructed polls. I just disrespect the scientific validity of <em>these</em> polls, or at least the reporting of these polls. With swings so large, a good statistician would be busily designing a new experiment to explain the discrepancy; but the reporters either ignore the swings, or else &quot;explain&quot; them without any real evidence behind the explanations.</p>
<p>I have pretty good confidence in Gallup and Rasmussen. Less in Zogby, because his swings tend to be wider and he&#8217;s more of an outlierÂ (though that gives him cred when the outlier happens to be right, like in 2000). But I have less confidence in the reporting.</p>
<p><em>&#8230;itâ€™s long been obvious that most Americans vote first and foremost for the candidate, not the party. </em></p>
<p>And then, or so it seems, they inverse cause-and-effect as it&#8217;s commonly reported. They seem to report party identification that lines up with their candidate choice. A lot of pundits assume the exact opposite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean Esmay</title>
		<link>http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161710</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Esmay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161710</guid>
		<description>I respect the scientific validity of polls more than our friend Martin, however, I would quite agree that party ID is not particularly important most of the time, because it&#039;s long been obvious that most Americans vote first and foremost for the candidate, not the party. Not just at the Presidential level, but for congressional, state, and local elections as well.

I think, as my ex- recently said to me, the attempt by Dems to make McCain into Bush II was a serious mistake, because no one with an IQ over 6 (her words) will buy that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I respect the scientific validity of polls more than our friend Martin, however, I would quite agree that party ID is not particularly important most of the time, because it&#8217;s long been obvious that most Americans vote first and foremost for the candidate, not the party. Not just at the Presidential level, but for congressional, state, and local elections as well.</p>
<p>I think, as my ex- recently said to me, the attempt by Dems to make McCain into Bush II was a serious mistake, because no one with an IQ over 6 (her words) will buy that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin L. Shoemaker</title>
		<link>http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161709</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161709</guid>
		<description>But it does confirm my long-held suspicion that Party ID is about as consequential as underwear choice for most people. If it can change that easily, it&#039;s not identity, it&#039;s fad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But it does confirm my long-held suspicion that Party ID is about as consequential as underwear choice for most people. If it can change that easily, it&#8217;s not identity, it&#8217;s fad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin L. Shoemaker</title>
		<link>http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161706</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:49:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deanesmay.com/2008/09/08/shifting-tides/#comment-161706</guid>
		<description>Polls are sensation, not news. They&#039;reÂ the modern equivalent of circus freak shows. They&#039;re there to draw eyes and money, but they&#039;re not the center ring.
Â </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Polls are sensation, not news. They&#8217;reÂ the modern equivalent of circus freak shows. They&#8217;re there to draw eyes and money, but they&#8217;re not the center ring.<br />
Â </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

