S Nelson's Blog

Correcting for Inaccuracy in Polls May be Inaccurate

AnneK — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:01:24 EDT

As has been pointed out many times throught this presidential campaign season, polls are inaccurate. We get that. The reason that many people have blogged about going back to before the Iowa Caucus is that pollsters such as Rasmutten only dial land lines. So at best, the polls ONLY represent the opinions of randomly selected Americans who have land line telephones with listed numbers.

It's all well and good to point out that fact as a potential source of poll inaccuracy, but some go further to provide the demographics of people who are NOT being reached because of the land line issue, and to suggest that it is valid to correct the poll in a certain direction and by a certain amount - based on information NOT gathered.

I'm willing, for the sake of argument, because I have nothing better to do for the next 10 minutes, to assume that you can legitimately correct gathered information based on NON gathered information... I would STILL argue against a valid correction based on simply the land line error and nothing else. I'd say it's REALLY difficult to accurately poll people in Florida and Ohio who will become confused at the voting booth and vote for a can of beans for President, later claiming they couldn't understand the ballot. That's gotta be like, close to a 5% correction. I'd say it's pretty darned difficult to accurately correct for the the voting dead - Democrats who will vote in November despite being incorporeal. I expect they're planning to come out in numbers this year. I'd give that a 3% correction. And here's perhaps my favorite, I doubt if everyone answering pollsters are being 100% honest. Look, it's the age of telemarketers and other unsolicited phonecallers troubling us at the LEAST convenient times with things that "will only take a minute." There are people who will participate JUST for the opportunity of screwing with poll results as payback for the intrusion. I'd call that at least a 2% correction. Then there's a random, let's say... 5% correction needed for all the other possible errors that I didn't think of.

Let's work the math. I've heard people say 8% for the landlines, plus another 15% for the other things I mentioned.... multiply by 2 just cause it sounds good, and take the square root because I know how to do that too, and you come up with a number THAT MEANS NOTHING!!!

You can't adjust gathered information based on non gathered information.

There Can Be Only One

AnneK — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:32:27 EDT

Sorry guys, but I couldn't help myself. The quote from the famous Highlander movie, "There can be only one", seems to be the understanding that some people have of the office of POTUS. Ready? Here it is. The President of the United States is simply a representative of the people. He or she is a member of a political party. The party has an ideology.

We need something much bigger than an individual in the White House come next year. Barack Obama cannot solve America's problems alone. No single individual can. No single individual has ever "run" this nation. The Democratic party is made up of a lot of people. And there are a lot of highly educated people near the top who are doing a lot of thinking about how to solve things. It is safe, I think, to assume that no matter which of our candidates had been our nominee, they would listening to Dr Dean, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy - while he can still advise, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and many more. There may be one individual that occupies the position of POTUS, but make no mistake that the executive branch is still a TEAM EFFORT.

Compare the team I just mentioned to the current Republican Team: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Libby, Gonzales, Rehnquist, .... and of course, heckuva job Brownie...

George W Bush, while an epic failure in his own right, could not possibly have achieved so much fail in the last 8 years without a really great support system.

We need the entire support system that will stand in the background behind the Democratic nominee.

Just One Thing

AnneK — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:33:21 EDT

If you could only write one blog here, ever, OR If you were interested in this election because of only one thing (one issue) what thing would you choose?

Just a question out of curiosity. I imagine a lot of people will say the economy, some will say the war, and some will be wholly unable to answer the question, and will settle for rambling a bit about how rotten Republicans are.

How Do You

AnneK — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:12:30 EDT

get someone who isn't really interested in American politics to register to vote? In university creative writing class, we had an exercise in writing hooks. Each day we had to write an opening paragraph, and by the third sentence, we had to hook the reader. So.... how do you hook someone who is too busy with life to stop and worry about all this?

War for Oil

AnneK — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:23:19 EDT

If there was no oil left, how long would you survive?

What Are YOU Willing To Do To Support A Democratic Victory?

AnneK — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:53:56 EDT

Write pro Obama posts on a pro Obama website?
Too easy. You can do that in your pajamas while you're getting drunk. That doesn't prove that you're willing to go the distance for a Democratic victory.

Give money?
Easy for those who have it to give.

Register voters? Do footwork on your real time in the real world?
Not bad. Now you're getting somewhere.

How about a real challenge, though. How about, are you willing to talk to people who do NOT support Senator Obama?
Are you willing to take on Republicans head to head - face to face? Are you willing to listen to their points, and have FAITH that your own points have more merit? Are you willing to let your own reasons stand up to a challenge?
Are you willing to LISTEN TO and DIALOGUE WITH the angry HRC supporters who havent come around? Or, is it simply more convenient to shut out anyone who opposes you?

Some who say that they would see a Democratic victory in November are only willing to work for that if it means they get to sit around in a group of like minded people who don't challenge them.

I'm willing to give a little more. I'm willing to work a little harder. I BELIEVE in the Democratic party. In all of it. I believe in Howard Dean, I believe in Donna Brazile, in Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, I still believe in John Edwards... even though we now see his failures. I believe in US. And I am never afraid, NEVER, to listen - really and truly listen - to those who oppose my beliefs, because ONLY in doing that do I earn their respect, and do I earn my chance to share my beliefs with them.

I don't need to have it easy. I'm willing to take the hard road to get from here to the White House.

So? What Have You Done With Your Day?

AnneK — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:01:38 EDT

Let's all take a sec and look around ourselves, and
see how much effect we're really having. I mean,
if all we're doing is blogging, that still matters, because
you might be influencing undecided voters who surf and
get to see some pro-Democratic Party posts. But you know,
this isn't all we could be doing. There's more than just a
message. There's action.

Arius is out registering voters today. Go Arius!

An Ode to Party Building

AnneK — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:26:11 EDT

Oh how I miss the good old days
of the presidential race,
I used to post my own ideas
with no one in my face.
We used to have some small respect
for fellow party members,
even when we disagreed....
I think Arius remembers.
But now those good old days are gone
the flames are being fanned.
By constant fighting day and night
and people getting canned.
The mod has swung his mighty axe
and bloggers' heads are rollin'
amid the cheers and victory cries
of Obamaphyles' extollin'
But it seems to me that there's a few
who live for pain and strife
and never miss a chance to fight...
c'mon guys - get a life.

Hello, is there anybody in there?

AnneK — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:01:45 EDT

Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?

Should or shouldnt's DNC Party Builder bloggers discuss Republican talking points?

AnneK — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:10:34 EDT

On one of our new moderator's posts yesterday, I noticed a comment that suggested that because Rezko, rev Wright, and other things were Republican talking points, that we should not be allowed to discuss them here.

I'd like to address that as the admin and owner of the "Build the Party" group. "Build the Party" has about 70 members, many of whom have been very quiet recently given the atmosphere here. But the group was created long ago because this IS party builder, I am dedicated, as are all the members of that group, to using this site to promote the Democratic party and help secure a victory for our nominee. "Build the Party" members have always sought to defuse the fighting here on the site, and promote working together.

Now, speaking as a person who has ever worked toward the goal of Party Building, I feel that suggestion about Republican talking points is a poorly thought out, and frankly bizarre extension of censorship over the material that appears on this blog. The recent purge of several members who were working against the party from within may have been necessary from the moderator's point of view, however, I would caution all of us. We, as a blog community, now have both feet on a very slippery slope. Let's NOT rush to create a "book burning" list of things we're not allowed to talk about... and here's why:

Consider some voter who has never been active in politics. He or she is undecided and thinking about maybe voting this time around. He or she is surfing the net for information. On the RNC blogs, that undecided voter will read the talking points against Senator Obama. They will read about Rezko's connection, they will read about Rev Wright, ... they'll see a link to the "God damn America" soundbite.... we KNOW what undecided voters will be fed on a conservative blog. So then suppose that voter comes here to see what we have to say. Do we censor ourselves out of posting discussions that offer rebuttals to those talking points? Given the opportunity, I can, or Liz could, or Kathleen could completely take apart the Rev. Wright issue, so that any undecided voter would immediately see the Republican spin machine for the idiotic propaganda that it is. However, if that topic is off limits to us, as was suggested in the comment on Matt's post, then we can offer no discussion and no rebuttal to their talking points.

Your call, democrats.

True BLUE

AnneK — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:56:31 EDT

His account is banned now. I know that will make a lot of Obama supporters happy. He won't be back, he says. He's not going to blog under any other name besides his own handle. I'm just passing along a message. He said tell Paul and Jack and Mel "ciao" for him. That's about it.

I hope that the justice that met with TB meets with everyone else who deserves it.

How do you guys manage it?

AnneK — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:41:21 EDT

Don't you get tired from all the fighting?
Doesn't it bring you down after a while?
I'm so tired.
I lost a friend today. One that I thought I'd have forever. I should be in bed crying, instead of sitting here staring at more fights on Partybuilder through the tears. But here I am.....
Don't you ever just want peace? Doesn't it make your head hurt, and sometimes even make your stomach hurt or your chest hurt? How does everyone keep up with the anger that's needed to go on fighting and fighting day after day? Like, dont you need to take a break and re-energize sometimes?

I want things to change for the better for everyone too... but right now I just wanna go to sleep for a really long time.

Thought for the day

AnneK — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:42:04 EDT

Discussion?

[Issue Discussion Group] - 3rd Party

AnneK — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:08:54 EDT

Not that this is really an issue for Democrats to talk about... but there's enough people throwing it out there these days...

Let's do it.

Who you gonna run on a third party? On what platform? and with what chance of success?

Serious discussion time.

Re: Apology for Slavery - a new suggestion.

AnneK — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:50:49 EDT

Okay, am I going to apologize for something I had no control over? No. I do not carry the burden of guilt for that. Besides, my family paid in blood with Southern men who volunteered to fight for the Union because slavery was wrong. So - apologize? No. And to whom? I could go down to TN and go find an old slave cemetery and apologize to some rock markers in the ground, but I don't think that's what you want.

It gets tricky trying to extract a heartfelt apology from people more than 100 years removed from the thing they're supposed to apologize for.

HOWEVER,

In RESPONSE to LPD's Challenge:

AnneK — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:30:36 EDT

See LPD's post below for info on the challenge.

Since I am of neutral mind and not opposed to any of the Democratic candidates, I will be writing a number of heartfelt, sincere, and original posts praising Senator Obama, and the same for Senator Clinton. Anyone who wants something nice to say about one of them for the CHALLENGE, can email me, and for a $5 donation to MY favorite charity, I'll send you something positive to post.

Thanks, and have a great challenge.

ISSUES?? Nah.... those are overrated.

AnneK — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:28:46 EDT

Welcome to GAFFEWATCH 2008!

God forbid that anyone who has been campaigning for 12 months now day in and day out speaking to people and doing interviews should fuck up a response to a question.

I'm gonna go completely rogue here, and suggest that this doesn't really impress me in the least as an actual reason why people shouldn't vote for McCain.

Here ARE a few:

[Issue Discussion Group] - Welfare

AnneK — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:51:03 EDT

Obviously, the system is not working the way we'd all like for it to.

I have some personal experience in the system. After my divorce, I wanted to go back and finish my incomplete university degree. I had two small children, no child support, and a low income. To my thinking, someone in that position should have been the welfare system's Golden Child. Working, with 3 years of university already passed, just needing 3 more semesters to complete a degree.... obviously not a habitual welfare recipient.

But what I found was that I had to fight, argue, appeal, struggle, beg and humiliate myself in order to get the assistance that was absolutely necessary if I was going to improve things for myself and my kids. Anyone with less then EXTREME determination would have been deterred by the red tape and the discouraging amount of time that has to be spent literally begging and justifying yourself. It would have been much more simple to give up hope and accept a life of low income unskilled labor and live in low income housing and raise kids with no aspirations.

But that's just one example. The system is broken.

What do we do?

Post for Lincoln Park Dem

AnneK — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:03:20 EDT

a good thing to go to sleep on.

.... It means no worries....

[Issue Discussions Group] - Terrorism

AnneK — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:22:29 EDT

It has often been said that U.S. foriegn policies are responsible for "creating more terrorists".

What do you think?