TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
You obviously did not understand what I wrote.
Landmark has a mathematical BIAS to the RIGHT, not to the LEFT. I just proved it.
This means that Nunn is likely doing BETTER in Georgia right now than Landmark predicts.
Of course, it's 4 months until election time, a lot can happen in that time.
But right now, Nunn has the upper hand.
I do understand what you wrote. If it had a mathematical bias to the RIGHT, then why does the current Landmark poll have Nunn winning by 6 points over Perdue and Kingston by 8? So, how can such be explained? If there is a 3 percent polling bias, either she's clobbering both of them, or barely winning against them. Then you have to factor the margin of error in there as well. Meaning stat, that she may be outperforming as your raw math tells, but polling bias works both ways.
She would be winning by 9 points over Perdue, and 11 points over Kingston of the polling bias were further to the left, if they were further to the right, the margin would be 3 points over Perdue and 5 points over Kingston.
Anywho, the SUSA poll might be six weeks old, but you were trumpeting the Landmark poll until you bothered to check their track record, they are bullshit as you just said. So, were you not jumping the gun there a bit earlier?
You really aren't that dense, are you?
There are two different values because she is being pitted against two different candidates! Even a first grader can understand that.
Mathematical bias is simply proof that the last set of polls from this company tended to predict more to the right than the actual result.
Using that as a likely template, it could very well mean that the margins currently predicted for Nunn, since she is a Democrat and not a Republican, are being UNDERSTATED, because the pollster has a mathematical bias to the Right and not to the Left. So, no, she is not just barely winning over them.
I picked the Landmark poll because it is the most recent one and there is no other poll within a two-week frame of this one to compare it with. The SUSA poll, for these purposes, is just too old.
Either you are being intentionally stupid or you are just trolling. Either way, you make the Right look bad with the bullshit you are writing here.
My posts stand as they are. I have presented actual data and the analysis is correct.
Tough shit for you.
Actually, I was less dense than I was a month ago. You can thank Joe for that.You really aren't that dense, are you?
A first grader could see how you flip flopped on that poll.There are two different values because she is being pitted against two different candidates! Even a first grader can understand that.
You would have made no mention of it had you come to the opposite conclusion.Mathematical bias is simply proof that the last set of polls from this company tended to predict more to the right than the actual result.
Spare me the justifications, Stat. You picked the poll specifically because of it's Republican leaning nature, seeing as how Nunn was winning in a right leaning firm's poll, you started touting it about for all to see. Then when you showed their inconsistencies on polling data you dismissed them.I picked the Landmark poll because it is the most recent one and there is no other poll within a two-week frame of this one to compare it with. The SUSA poll, for these purposes, is just too old.
With your posting and name calling, you make the left sound desperate. As they, and you, should be. A leftist such as yourself had to spin a right leaning poll. That's incredibly sad. I caught you in several inconsistencies. The pattern of your argument says so.Either you are being intentionally stupid or you are just trolling. Either way, you make the Right look bad with the bullshit you are writing here.
Your posts only stand because you want them to. They stand on a fantasy you dreamed up. I normally attribute that to folks who wear the 'rose colored glasses.' So enamored with that poll that you were willing to ignore reality to show how one right leaning poll showing a left wing candidate winning would trump them all, until you got into the woodwork. Your data is impeccable, your logic is flawed. With your statistical brain, you managed to destroy your own premise. Move along now.My posts stand as they are. I have presented actual data and the analysis is correct.
Tough shit for you.
Pretty easy shit, actually.
Last edited: