Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And the other article by Michelle Malkin? So she's not even close to being credible because she'll distort facts and lie to promote her position.

But she is an attractive MILF now isn't she?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But she is an attractive MILF now isn't she?

Whoaaaa Neeeeeeeeeeellie! That she is.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But she[Michelle Malkin] is an attractive MILF now isn't she?

Yeah, I'll admit she's attractive, but I'm not so sure I'd go as far as to say she's an MILF...at least to me. Most people on this board indicate that you have to make a "connection" to have a good time. I don't think I could get anything close to a connection with her.

I'll just say she's an "MILF over." I know, that's crude.

[discreetgent]

The will of the people is an interesting thing to ponder, sometimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?hp (yeah, yeah I know the source but they do their polls using sound methodology)

[pjorourke]

The majority of the public doesn't even understand the issues. This is just the beginning of their education.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The majority of the public doesn't even understand the issues. This is just the beginning of their education.

This is a line worth remembering for future use.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

The will of the people is an interesting thing to ponder, sometimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?hp (yeah, yeah I know the source but they do their polls using sound methodology)

Polling and statistics are subjective to the people/regions polled. I am not a big fan of polls even when they lean right. Although, I, just like others, will use them. I'm sure YOU know this stuff, but I thought I'd include it for those that DO shape their personal opinions based on polls.

Nonresponse bias

Since some people do not answer calls from strangers, or refuse to answer the poll, poll samples may not be representative samples from a population due to a non-response bias (Non-response bias occurs in statistical surveys if the answers of respondents differs from the potential answers of those who did not answer). Because of this selection bias (Selection bias is a statistical bias in which there is an error in choosing the individuals or groups to take part in a scientific study. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The term "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from...) the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different from those who decline. That is, the actual sample is a biased version of the universe the pollster wants to analyze. In these cases, bias introduces new errors, one way or the other, that are in addition to errors caused by sample size. Error due to bias does not become smaller with larger sample sizes, because taking a larger sample size simply repeats the same mistake on a larger scale. If the people who refuse to answer, or are never reached, have the same characteristics as the people who do answer, then the final results should be unbiased. If the people who do not answer have different opinions then there is bias in the results. In terms of election polls, studies suggest that bias effects are small, but each polling firm has its own techniques for adjusting weights to minimize selection bias.

Response bias

Survey results may be affected by response bias (Response bias is a type of cognitive bias which can affect the results of a statistical survey if respondents answer questions in the way they think the questioner wants them to answer rather than according to their true beliefs), where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs. This may be deliberately engineered by unscrupulous pollsters in order to generate a certain result or please their clients, but more often is a result of the detailed wording or ordering of questions (see below). Respondents may deliberately try to manipulate the outcome of a poll by e.g. advocating a more extreme position than they actually hold in order to boost their side of the argument or give rapid and ill-considered answers in order to hasten the end of their questioning. Respondents may also feel under social pressure not to give an unpopular answer. For example, respondents might be unwilling to admit to unpopular attitudes like racism (Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race) or sexism (Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century, is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other. It can also refer to hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole , or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation), and thus polls might not reflect the true incidence of these attitudes in the population. In American political parlance, this phenomenon is often referred to as the Bradley Effect (The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect, is a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some US government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other). If the results of surveys are widely publicized this effect may be magnified - a phenomenon commonly referred to as the spiral of silence (The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory propounded by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann).

Wording of questions

It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. For instance, the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". This support itself overrides subtle bias for one candidate, as does lumping some candidates in an "other" category or vice versa. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. On some issues, question wording can result in quite pronounced differences between surveys. This can also, however, be a result of legitimately conflicted feelings or evolving attitudes, rather than a poorly constructed survey.

A common technique to control for this bias is to rotate the order in which questions are asked. Many pollsters also split-sample. This involves having two different versions of a question, with each version presented to half the respondents.

[discreetgent]

Word!

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The majority of the public doesn't even understand the issues. This is just the beginning of their education.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

This is a line worth remembering for future use.

Yeah, well this is what happens when employers (private and public) engage in literally generations of abuse of employees. They've only reaped what they sowed.

And as far as the public not understanding the issues. Don't sell them so short just because you disagree with the poll.

[pjorourke]

I'm not selling them short. As we have discussed, their are a variety of issues wrapped up in this mess - public vs private unions, collective bargaining, work rules, productivity, affordability, campaign contributions, etc. You can bias the shit out of a poll by how you phrase the question. The public didn't "get" the Tea party people when they first hit the scene 2 years ago. Then 1 year and a half later, they lined up behind them and threw Nancy 7 Co out on her ass.

p.s. Much better avatar Chuck.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The majority of the public doesn't even understand the issues. This is just the beginning of their education.

In a similar vein, I just saw this in a collection of quotes someone emailed me:

"'The trouble with people is not that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so.' This line, variously attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rogers and Yogi Berra, actually originated with the 19th century humorist Josh Billings, which in itself proves his point. I spent a good deal of time last week writing about the ignorance and apathy of the general public when it comes to unions and collective bargaining. But specialists often complain that people lack interest in their specialty, so it wouldn't surprise or bother me to learn that many casual readers simply, uh, ignored it. It was with impeccable timing, then, that the Kaiser Family Foundation released the results of its latest tracking poll. It showed that 22 percent of those surveyed believe the federal health care reform bill has been repealed. Another 26 percent didn't know or refused to answer. Only a slim majority of 52 percent knew it is still the law of the land. Teachers may find it ironic that now all of us (by which I mean politicians, journalists, policy wonks, unionists and bloggers) are faced with an environment similar to what they face in the classroom -- namely, people who don't pay attention. We're obligated to present the material in a clear, concise and logical manner, and we should constantly reevaluate whether we're doing that. But at some point, it's the responsibility of the student/audience/public to take it in. Will Rogers (really!) said, 'Everyone is ignorant, only in different subjects.' And he was right. But it seems we've reached a stage where a lot of people are ignorant of their ignorance of those subjects, but have strong opinions anyway" -- Mike Antonucci, an education policy blogger, writing yesterday at eiaonline.com.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm not selling them short. As we have discussed, their are a variety of issues wrapped up in this mess - public vs private unions, collective bargaining, work rules, productivity, affordability, campaign contributions, etc. You can bias the shit out of a poll by how you phrase the question. The public didn't "get" the Tea party people when they first hit the scene 2 years ago. Then 1 year and a half later, they lined up behind them and threw Nancy 7 Co out on her ass.

I strongly suspect if the WI Gov retaliates by slashing gov workers, he'll feel it in the next, if not before in an impeachment process. Teachers are not inexperienced at organizing, and by terminating them, the Gov is not only attacking a well organized group to begin with, but also a group that most people, especially parents, are sympathetic to. And increasing student class size isn't going to go over well with anyone.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

p.s. Much better avatar Chuck.

Thx.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

it's the responsibility of the student/audience/public to take it in.

I don't disagree, but how is that accomplished? It would mean weaning a large audience from Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, The View, etc., and actually have them engage facts. Then who presents the facts? Keith Olbermann or Neil Cavuto?

Teachers face a whole different set of problems, and I have sympathy for their plight.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't disagree, but how is that accomplished? It would mean weaning a large audience from Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, The View, etc., and actually have them engage facts. Then who presents the facts? Keith Olbermann or Neil Cavuto?

Teachers face a whole different set of problems, and I have sympathy for their plight.

I agree. It used to be easy to find unslanted written data. Now, it's really hard. Almost every link/publication linked by PJ, DFW5, CM and others, are written from their own POV. Same goes for the left hand side of this Board. I have been remarkably unable to find one source I consider to be a neutral reporter of facts.

I don't think I ask for a whole lot. Let me ingest the facts on the neutral basis so I can make up my own mind on issues. However, every writing I've seen since the Eisenhower administration has had its own bias.

Walter Cronkite used to be regarded as the pinnacle of even-handed reporting. I don't think there are many on this board that believe that he actually was, but that was his reputation. Is it so much to ask that there be one source that is reliable and trustworthy?

Apparently so.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And increasing student class size isn't going to go over well with anyone.

I believe teacher quality is almost incomparably more important than class size. U.S. schools have almost twice the number of teachers per student than they did 50 years ago, and spend about twice the number of (inflation-adjusted) dollars -- yet they achieve poorer results. Something obviously ain't working. One of the main problems is that the system protects bad teachers and fails to sufficiently reward the good ones. If we continue doing that, we'll just sink further and further behind the rest of the world. Nothing will change until teachers unions make our kids a greater priority than our more poorly qualified and unmotivated teachers. Let's get rid of the bad ones and pay the good ones better. Teaching should be an honored and rewarded profession.

I think Bill Gates made some excellent points in this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1