Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri in 2010?

[Young Person]

The real USA First wrote:

<quoted text>
How's the Cabela's Store at the Katy Mills?

Sir , I'm aware that when I post it shows various cities across this great nation !
To be exact , I have 24 possible Nation wide transponders that I access!
Each transponder host 1000 sub transponders !
Each sub transponder host 10000 mini sub transponders!
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding !

[Bada BAIN]

Young Person wrote:

<quoted text>
Sir , I'm aware that when I post it shows various cities across this great nation !
To be exact , I have 24 possible Nation wide transponders that I access!
Each transponder host 1000 sub transponders !
Each sub transponder host 10000 mini sub transponders!
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding !

Is that how you keep in comunication with the mothership?

[Yellow Dawg Democrat]

Strong Proud Conservative wrote:

Bad news for liberals already this morning. Scott Walker is leading in the recall election in Wisconsin by 7 points.

As usual, "SPC," you are clueless. The recall election will be held on June 5.

(Or is this your psychic abilities working overtime?)

[Yellow Dawg Democrat]

Strong Proud Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the Mormons you just described. You described the Muslims.

Huh? You better take a few vacation days off from your grueling schedule of tracking down teenage gas-station drive-offs.

[Yellow Dawg Democrat]

Ruth Chambers holt wrote:

<quoted text>********I_forgot_***** ***_to_mention_********
Hey again "YDD", I meant to mention something to you yesterday when I first read this info about your "New Yawk" visit that I had done a new 'tune' for ya over at SS when ya ventured 'up north'. I wondered about you when I did the song as I was asking myself if ya had to "Change ATTITUDE" when you "Change Lattitude"??? LOL
http://www.singsnap.com/karaoke/watchandliste...
BBL...,(hope ya like the tune 8-)
Poof!

Great recording, Ruth! I always liked that song. Thanks for the memories!

In fact I do change "attitude" when I change "lattitude." When I go north, I become much more forceful and less shy as I usually am.

[Yellow Dawg Democrat]

[QUOTE who="... yellowdawg ... "]Yellow dawg ...{edited for intelligence}[/QUOTE]

ROFL! I see that my lecture about vulgarity and insults is finally paying off.

[1Watt Hermit]

Strong Proud Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the Mormons you just described. You described the Muslims.

That pretty much describes all of the fundy religions. There's not a bit of space between the beliefs of Sunni, Mormons, evangelicals.

[Uncommon Sense]

Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
1. You show that you do not understand sampling. Since a single poll samples a "population," it cannot be precisely correct in determining the population average. Only a 100% poll of the entire population will be precisely correct. The advantage of sampling (hopefully random) is that the average of the entire population can be estimated, with some margin of error.
2. Depending upon the size of the sample, relative to the entire population, a "margin of error" can be calculated. Typically, a so-called "two-sigma" spread is calculated which means that there is a 95% probability that the true population average falls within the "two-sigma" error as added to the average value determined by that single poll.
3. You say that if polls are "differing," one is wrong. That is not true. Essentially, ALL polls differ because of the relatively small number of samples taken.
4. What IS true is that, if one takes SEVERAL polls, including polls taken by different organizations, and averages those poll results, that average number should statistically be closer to the true population average than the results of a single poll. That is the reason I like to look at the AVERAGE number of the polls which RealClearPolitics tracks.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/...
5. I am amused at your article regarding polling. If you had read the link you provided, you would have seen that the historic polling was taken of MILITARY VETERANS. Be advised that military veterans do not represent the overall US population. The "military veteran" population is primarily male, primarily over 40 years of age, and is primarily composed of persons with "conservative" political views. Thus, the demographic of the article which you cite is not particularly representative in any sense of the typical US voter. We can reasonably expect that the "average" military veteran will vote for Romney. It will not make any difference.

1-2 It is the pollsters job to select a sample size and demographic to ensure it leads to accurate results. If the result can not be achieved they need a larger sample size. While polls have to be random to a point, they must remain consistent to the demographic. Calling at 6 AM Most Dems will not be out bed, calling at 2 PM most Rep. will be at work.
3. If two polls differ outside of their respective margin or error then one pollster has an error and not selected either a large enough sample size, an accurate sample size, or miscalculation in the error. All polls will differ but should not be outside the margin of error. One poll can have 50, the other 44 if both have a 3%+/- they fall in their margin of error.
I will repeat again if a poll states an error that is the error it is allowed to have. They can not differ outside this number or else one must be wrong.

You Wrote
Incidentally, I note another "generality" in which you assert that "older war veterans support Romney over Obama by 20%." Do you have any basis for saying that? Like the name of the poll?

5. You asked for a basis if Veterans supported Romney. I presented you with a poll that supported that basis. It is hard to even answer your questions for you.

If you notice all the polls on RCP are within the margin of error, one thing to notice is RV vs. LV. Those are not stated to be the same group. The timing of the polls can also suggest swings.

[Uncommon Sense]

The real USA First wrote:

<quoted text>
"Corporations ARE peopIe, my Friend"
-- WlLLARD and the 5 SUPREMES
If corporations are people why aren't any in PRlS0N?
If corporations are people why can I make one electronically in 15 minutes?
If corporations are people why can I KlLL ONE ELECTRONICALLY in 5 Read More... Minutes LEGALLY?
Why hasn't P e r r y E X E C U T E D one of THEM THAR C0RP0RATE PE0PLE?
If corporations are people why don't we include them in the unempIoyment rate?
If corporations are people why aren't they allowed to vote?
If corporations are people why are we not allowed to marry them?
If corporations are people why don't people say I have three kids and one corporation on the way?
If corporations are people why haven’t any of them lost a limb or paid the ultimate sacrifice in a war?
If corporations are people why don't they pay the tax rates average people pay?
If corporations are people why don't they ever call in sick?
If corporations are people why can't we elect one as president?
If corporations are people why won't they go see a doctor?
If corporations are people why don't we see these corporate people cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico - cleaning up their corporate mess? ALL I SEE IS REAL PEOPLE!

I would actually read the Supreme court decisions, instead of listening Comedy Central.

[BrainDead Liberals]

House Democrats Vote to Support Gender-Based Abortions
161 House Democrats voted today to support gender-based abortions.

By: Rachel Pulaski

Today, the House rejected H.R. 3541 The Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), sponsored by AZ Republican Trent Franks, which would have made it a federal crime for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the gender or race of the fetus. The bill required a two-thirds majority vote and was defeated in a final vote of 246-168. There were 20 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill and 7 Republicans who opposed it. Thirty more votes were needed to pass the bill.

Republicans that voted against the bill were Ron Paul (Texas), Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.) and Nan Hayworth (N.Y.)

Democrats voting in favor were Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross (Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).

Fox News has more:

The White House and Democratic lawmakers opposed the bill out of concern that it could end up subjecting doctors to strict punishment, suggesting the law would be difficult to follow.“The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday. But GOP lawmakers pointed to the opposition as further proof of the administration’s abortion advocacy.“It is inconceivable to me how our Nobel Prize-winning president can refuse to protect little girls from the violence of sex-selection abortion,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said Thursday. Bill sponsor Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said “there has never been a more pro-abortion president in the White House … I’m astonished the leader of the free world would fail to protect the unborn from being aborted on the basis of sex.”

This should come as no surprise, considering Obama is the most pro-abortion president in US history, who 4 times voted to support infanticide. How will the President explain to his daughters that he chose not to protect his future grandchildren from race or sex based abortions?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/house...

[The real USA First]

BrainDead Liberals wrote:

House Democrats Vote to Support Gender-Based Abortions
161 House Democrats voted today to support gender-based abortions.
By: Rachel Pulaski
Today, the House rejected H.R. 3541 The Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), sponsored by AZ Republican Trent Franks, which would have made it a federal crime for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the gender or race of the fetus. The bill required a two-thirds majority vote and was defeated in a final vote of 246-168. There were 20 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill and 7 Republicans who opposed it. Thirty more votes were needed to pass the bill.
Republicans that voted against the bill were Ron Paul (Texas), Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.) and Nan Hayworth (N.Y.)
Democrats voting in favor were Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross (Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).
Fox News has more:
The White House and Democratic lawmakers opposed the bill out of concern that it could end up subjecting doctors to strict punishment, suggesting the law would be difficult to follow.“The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday. But GOP lawmakers pointed to the opposition as further proof of the administration’s abortion advocacy.“It is inconceivable to me how our Nobel Prize-winning president can refuse to protect little girls from the violence of sex-selection abortion,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said Thursday. Bill sponsor Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said “there has never been a more pro-abortion president in the White House … I’m astonished the leader of the free world would fail to protect the unborn from being aborted on the basis of sex.”
This should come as no surprise, considering Obama is the most pro-abortion president in US history, who 4 times voted to support infanticide. How will the President explain to his daughters that he chose not to protect his future grandchildren from race or sex based abortions?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/house...

I am 100% AGAINST Abortion...Except...IN YOUR CASE!

[Vette]

Who cares

[HUSSEIN]

Walker is kicking dem ass.Obama is a douchebag amateur.Yellow dawg shit is scum!

[HUSSEIN]

I am a jug eared amateur and am getting evicted from the white mans house!

[Norton]

The real USA First wrote:

<quoted text>
"Corporations ARE peopIe, my Friend"
-- WlLLARD and the 5 SUPREMES
If corporations are people why aren't any in PRlS0N?
If corporations are people why can I make one electronically in 15 minutes?
If corporations are people why can I KlLL ONE ELECTRONICALLY in 5 Read More... Minutes LEGALLY?
Why hasn't P e r r y E X E C U T E D one of THEM THAR C0RP0RATE PE0PLE?
If corporations are people why don't we include them in the unempIoyment rate?
If corporations are people why aren't they allowed to vote?
If corporations are people why are we not allowed to marry them?
If corporations are people why don't people say I have three kids and one corporation on the way?
If corporations are people why haven’t any of them lost a limb or paid the ultimate sacrifice in a war?
If corporations are people why don't they pay the tax rates average people pay?
If corporations are people why don't they ever call in sick?
If corporations are people why can't we elect one as president?
If corporations are people why won't they go see a doctor?
If corporations are people why don't we see these corporate people cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico - cleaning up their corporate mess? ALL I SEE IS REAL PEOPLE!

Huh?? Are you talkin' to me? I have no idea what you are talkin' about.

CHEERS!

[Norton]

1Watt Hermit wrote:

<quoted text>
That pretty much describes all of the fundy religions. There's not a bit of space between the beliefs of Sunni, Mormons, evangelicals.

How are they alike? I doubt that you really know anything about any of the three. I don't know about Sunni but I do know about Mormons and Christians. Believe me, they are not the same.

CHEERS!

[Yellow Dawg Democrat]

Uncommon Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
1-2 It is the pollsters job to select a sample size and demographic to ensure it leads to accurate results. If the result can not be achieved they need a larger sample size. While polls have to be random to a point, they must remain consistent to the demographic. Calling at 6 AM Most Dems will not be out bed, calling at 2 PM most Rep. will be at work.
3. If two polls differ outside of their respective margin or error then one pollster has an error and not selected either a large enough sample size, an accurate sample size, or miscalculation in the error. All polls will differ but should not be outside the margin of error. One poll can have 50, the other 44 if both have a 3%+/- they fall in their margin of error.
I will repeat again if a poll states an error that is the error it is allowed to have. They can not differ outside this number or else one must be wrong.
You Wrote
Incidentally, I note another "generality" in which you assert that "older war veterans support Romney over Obama by 20%." Do you have any basis for saying that? Like the name of the poll?
5. You asked for a basis if Veterans supported Romney. I presented you with a poll that supported that basis. It is hard to even answer your questions for you.
If you notice all the polls on RCP are within the margin of error, one thing to notice is RV vs. LV. Those are not stated to be the same group. The timing of the polls can also suggest swings.

Ah, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I am reminded of the saying that it is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt!_8-)

You have attempted to show that you "have a clue," but your response shows massive gaps in your knowledge of sampling theory and polling.

1. The primary job of the pollster is to attempt to achieve a random sampling of the desired population, in order to achieve a close determination of the characteristic sampled. That is difficult, as you have pointed out. If you call Democrats at 6 am, they are getting ready to go to work, or in fact already on the road to work. If you call Republicans at 2 pm, you find that they are out of the office, taking a long "lunch break," or playing handball.

2. A larger sample size does not achieve more accuracy. However, it does achieve smaller calculated expected deviations from the true value of the average value for the demographic sampled.

3. Regarding your #3 above, a poll CANNOT differ outside its own calculated margin of error. Your statement is meaningless, because that cannot mathematically occur. Further, if two polls of the same population differ beyond their calculated margins of error, that does NOT mean that one of the polls must be wrong. A poll cannot be "wrong." We are talking statistics here. The value of any given poll can, and occasionally will, be outside the calculated margin of error of another poll of the same population. You simply do not understand what a standard deviation is, or margin of error, or how those those values apply to the results of a given poll. By definition, the results of a given poll will fall away from the true average value of the population by some percentage, mathematically determined through calculation of the standard deviation of the poll.

4. You assert, "All polls will differ but should not be outside the margin of error. One poll can have 50, the other 44 if both have a 3%+/- they fall in their margin of error."

That is pure claptrap, as I have pointed out. In addition, it is bad arithmetic.

5. In your comment #54232, you stated, "The older war veterans support Romney over Obama by 20%." I challenged that statement. You did not deliver.

[Argentine_Matt]

Yea what they said.

[Yellow Dawg Democrat]

Obama ONE AND DONE wrote:

... First the United States GDP Growth Rate dropped from a rate of 3.0 in the last quarter of 2011 to a now revised rate of 1.9%(Far below the needed 5% to be considered a "growing economy")...

In other news, it was reported that your IQ dropped from 3.0 to a revised 1.9, far below an IQ of 40 needed for you to be considered somewhat intelligent.

[Yellow Dawg Democrat]

Obama ONE AND DONE wrote:

*****EDITED POST for my "haven't had enough coffee yet this morning screw up in my previous post"....

*****EDITED POST for my "haven't had enough coffee yet this morning screw up in my previous post":

In other news, it was reported that your IQ dropped from 3.0 to a revised 1.9, far below an IQ of 20 needed for you to be considered somewhat intelligent.