Polling Data

The Telegraph has this on the Collins v. Marshall debate. PP and Bobby get a mention.

U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall’s campaign released an internal poll this week – data that aides would normally keep secret and use for their own strategic planning.

The poll, conducted by The Mellman Group, a Democrat-friendly firm based in Washington, D.C., showed Marshall leading Republican challenger Mac Collins 50 percent to 34 percent. About 15 percent of voters were undecided, and there is a 5 percent margin of error.

Doug Moore, Marshall’s campaign spokesman, said he released the poll to combat the notion that the congressional race is growing close when it is not.

“We’re in good shape here. We’re in a good situation,

30 comments

  1. CHelf says:

    And the wrong district myth has been debunked. It was the correct district. Let’s see the full details on this Marshall poll so we can pick it apart.

  2. CHelf are you smoking crack? They polled the old 8th district which Lynn Westmoreland represents (and isn’t even running for) instead of the brand new 8th district. If that wasn’t true, the pollster would have said so in the article.

    Mellman is the best in the business. And they don’t push leaners, either. That means 50% offered Marshall without the pollster saying “well if you’re undecided who are you leaning to right now?” I’ve also worked with the Mellman Group and know they do meticulous sample preparation, regional balancing, sample stratification, etc.

    I’m sorry, but I’ll take their 50-35 over that other 39-38 nonsense anyday of the week.

  3. me says:

    As to young Ted, crack open any opinion research textbook. The ideal time for a survey is 3-7 days. Sometimes pollsters will do one over two days late in the cycle, but it makes them very uncomfortable and unsure of their data. One day is universally considered to be invalid.

    It was the wrong district, silly boy (or silly girl). Collins’s other friends at the Economic Freedom Fund actually sent their first two pieces of mail to the old 8th district (and sent “make up” pieces to the rest of the district both on the same day weeks later). They were probably using the same voter file to run their sample.

    If you knew anything about polling, you would know there’s no practical way the “typo” you imagined could happen. And if you bothered to look at a map you would know that there’s know way to cplit the new 8th into the regions described on the poll. What you have is a message on an answering machine from someone who’s trying to cover his ass. What will it be next? a fake data set?

    Sorry, buddy, we support faith-based social services here, but not faith-based quantitative analysis.

    You saw nothing. You’re still a liar.

    On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog, but they eventually can tell that you’re an idiot.

  4. Jane says:

    I am not certain if there was a mistake in the poll, but a friend told me that there was a delay in updating the congressional district lines by a well known national dbase company. If the dbase manager of the polling company had not double checked the data pull, I can understand how the data he used for the poll was wrong.

    From my antidotal sources in the district, the race is close, but Marshall is ahead. Personally, I do not believe either poll.

  5. me says:

    I meant “no way to split”. See, that’s an actual typo; there’s a rational explanation as to how it could happen in the real world, not just in fantasy land.

  6. Mellman wants to continue to get business. Therefor, he will not allow a bogus poll with his name on it to be released to the media. He will stand by his poll, that’s the only way to get repeat business in the future.

    Will this race tighten? Inevitably. Can’t imagine a Republican can get less than 40% or so here. My final prediction: 54-46 Marshall.

  7. CHelf says:

    Smoking crack? Did you not read the PI??? Are you blind? The Polling Company said THE FOOTNOTE WAS THE INCORRECT ITEM. Note they said they polled the correct district. For the reading impaired that means THE CORRECT DISTRICT WAS POLLED. There is no other way to say this. You can argue smoking crack, how schooled you are in polling, or how reliable anything Kahn says all you want. The fact is the source data was the correct district. Fact is fact. I find it amusing that people who have no clue what data was pulled somehow have this DHS ability to know such things. Even if you did have some superspy knowledge of the data that was polled, you’d see the exact same thing I have seen. The same lines in the current district and the same data in the current district was the source data. Argue all day. CIS and The Polling Company have said the correct data was pulled and polled. The PC has said it was the footnote that was the incorrect item. I don’t know what else there is to say. While they have stated the correct data was used, I have yet to see anything substantive by Bobby Kahn, me, and chrishardcore. All I’ve seen is an arrogant attitude about their own alledged abilities and the best childish name calling I’ve seen to date. I guess they can make baseless claims and not back it up all day long. I also guess that it is perfectly fine to argue old polls all day long as well. Here’s some free advice guys…..try dishing out some polls with some firm data to back it up. Better yet, try just dropping the poll talk and talk about the issues. I know that’s hard for your side to do.

  8. Can you provide a link? I believe they are lying if they did this. How could you work with this district and think there is a “Southeast” region only because you did the wrong district.

    This would be like releasing a Georgia poll and saying “Taylor is weak in the Richmond area but strong in Northeast” then saying oh well we actually polled Georgia not Virginia we just mislabeled Richmond as Macon and Northeast as Savannah.

    It can not happen. That is the reason this poll has been spiked.

  9. me says:

    Right. The company can say all day long (though it so far has not) that they polled the right district, but the counties they listed and the regions they listed them in (and provided percentages for) are NOT in the right district. There’s just no way to get the wrong footnote from the right data.

    It’s in black and white. There’s no way for them to clean this up. When you screw up like this, best to ‘fess up, take your big heap of medicine and suffer for a good long while. Because there’s nothing worse a pollster can do than what they have done — except of course to try to deceive people about the data to cover up. It’s the cover up that really kills you in American politics.

  10. me says:

    And CHelf, why do you think all the other Republicans have abandoned you?

    It’s because they realize your fanciful tale is ridiculous.

  11. CHelf says:

    Well considering some unknown person named ME, chrishardcore, and Kahn say it is so, I guess it must be. Kahn’s credibility is worthless and since neither of you have seen the data firsthand, I guess that means the issue is solved.

    Chrishardcore….I’ve mentioned PI several times. Just go there. Shocking that the truth is this easy but no matter what you conclude, the fact is the correct data was pulled and polled.

    How was this spiked? Obviously it wasn’t spiked because CIS who sponsored the poll had it on their site. Kahn pulled up another link for this as well. Anyone familiar with internal polling, clearly not you two, would know not every poll is released. But here’s a little news for you. This was solely an immigration based poll. A few other questions were added, typical of pollsters but the poll was solely on immigration. This group released their poll on their site. Enough said.

    Me, you can keep on repeating the same pointless garbage all day long and spout out cute little insults as well. Fact is that the sponsor and the company have said the footnote is what was wrong. You cannot provide simple proof and that is typical of irrational and scared Dems this late in the game. All you have to argue on is some three week old poll you cannot even provide substance on.

    I will tell you this. You can keep calling me a liar all day. Again, I have seen the data that was used. I have seen it and have verified it. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt this source data pulled for this poll was for the correct district. Since you haven’t seen it, all you have to go on is a footnote. Words can be mistaken. But pulled data that has been proven to come from the right district is FACT.

    So keep on harping over something that everyone else has moved on about. You’re wrong and have no way to prove it. All you can do is say the same thing over and over and not be able to back it up. Just give it up. You, chrishardcore, and Bobby are wrong on this. It’s sad that your leader has nothing else to go on but trying to discredit a poll that is old. You’d think he’d be out there showing the world the so-called truth with all of these polls that show Marshall way out on top. All we’ve heard is numbers but nothing to back that up. This is typical…..all talk with no substance.

  12. CHelf says:

    And I don’t think anyone has abandoned me. I think it’s a matter of people knowing this is pointless to even argue and have moved on. Anyone involved in this race is actually working on real issues. I have the luxury of arguing because it shows the fools of the other side who have nothing to back up their claim that the incorrect data was pulled. Again, show me people, data, numbers, something tangible. Don’t try too hard. As a matter of fact, I’ll save you the trouble. The data was from the correct district.

  13. me says:

    Fine. Post a link to the dataset.

    Of course, I’m apparently totally unqualified, but my Master’s in quantitative analysis may just allow me to check it out.

    Because “I said so” only works with six year olds.

    Oh, and claiming that Democrats are “scared” this ear really does a lot to enhance your credibility.

    P.S. “Credibility” means record for believability. Its does not mean “how much I like you”, so why you think Kahn’s is so low is a mystery.

    BTW, THERE’S A LINK TO THE MELLMAN MEMO IN THE INSIDER PIECE.

    You do realize we’re just playing with you because you’re so damned stupid, right?

  14. me says:

    BTW, show ME data. Because you’re just making it up.

    No wonder you want to “save me the trouble”.

    Now get the hell out of your mom;s basement and go out and get some fresh air!

  15. me says:

    You seem to imply a) that you are privy to COllins;s internal polling and b) that you have seen tha actual sample from the CIS poll.

    Are both of those true?

  16. CHelf says:

    Read what I’ve stated repeatedly. I’ve spelled it out as clear as I can. I have not implied anything. Go back and read my statements (multiple ones mind you) about what I have seen. How can firsthand knowledge be made up? It must be the same method of you saying you know beyond the shadow of a doubt the data was in the wrong district.

    You may have a masters in quantitative analysis but you lack a basic knowledge in evidence. A single line in a footnote that the sponsor AND the polling company have said was incorrect is not something you go trying to disprove the actual data. Since you have no access to the actual data and have no access to the process that came from the data, you have no clue. No degree will help you in that matter. A simple mistake on a Word document is all you have. Both the sponsor and polling firm admitted to that mistake and still say the source data was in the correct district.

    As for internal polling, how is an independent poll on this race internal polling? CIS and PC were not tied to the COllins camp on this poll. Had you taken the time to read the entire CIS site, you’d see this poll was conducted in numerous districts around the nation. This had no ties to the Collins camp at all. Once again, your story needs a little touch up.

    As for the link to the Mellman memo, I’ve looked up and down and don’t see any geographic info on this at all. There’s no proof that this is accurate but yet you tout it as believable.

    Let me ask you this. Since we are talking about polls and confidence varaibles, just how confident are you that this poll and the source data are from the wrong district? With only a footnote to go on that has already been debunked, how confident are you that this was in the wrong district? With little to go on and your so called masters, I’d hope that you’d give a low number. But after seeing all of your garbage you’ve already posted, I honestly expect you to say 100%.

  17. me says:

    It just drives you nuts that not only are y’all in so much trouble, but that everyone knows it, doesn’ it?

    Evidence requires a credible theory, which you do ot have.

    Ask any reputable Republican pollster whether Mark Mellman is reliable. And then ask them about “The Polling Company”.

    The footnote is conclusive evidence. It as not been debunked, because, given the chain of events, it can. be.

    You have implied exactly what I have said. You said you have seen the CIS “source data”. You have talked as someone who is “familiar” with “internal” polling. SInce you clearly don;t have Marshall’s, it must be Collins’s.

    Doyou see where this is going?

  18. me says:

    By the way, “firsthand knowledge” can be “made up” by a liar or a fool. SO you are clearly overqualified.

  19. CHelf says:

    Your logic is so skewed. A footnote is not conclusive. Considering, let me repeat this again for the slow of mind, that the sponsor CIS and the polling firm PC have both said the footnote was incorrect, how can you honestly say a footnote is conclusive evidence? God forbid you ever make it on a jury. I’d ask you if you’ve been on OJ’s and MJ’s juries.

    Let me also say this slowly for you….you clearly missed the point of my reference to internal polling. I never said I knew of Collins’ or Marshall’s internal polling. I said “Anyone familiar with internal polling, clearly not you two, would know not every poll is released”. I’m not sure where you got that I know of Collins’ internal polling out of that. It must be the same reaching out and grasping for straws logic you’re using.

    I have not implied anything. What part of what I’ve repeatedly said can you not understand? I’ve said I’ve seen the source data. No implication and definitely no assumption like you.

    Can you say you’ve seen the source data? Nope. Didn’t think so. Can you say you’ve personally verified that the data was in the correct district? Nope. Didn’t think so. All you have is a footnote that was an error.

    I guess believing in a pollster’s document you have made an effort to debunk is the intelligence of a qualified genius? How can you slam a polling firm for being incompetent and not getting a poll right but then taking what they’ve typed on a form as the Gospel truth? Which is it? Why are you believing a sentence from a company you say is lousy?

    I noted no response to the questions I posed you. I guess that qualitative analysis knowledge isn’t that strong since you’ve mouthed off an opinion without backing up your own confidence in what you’re saying.

    I’ll ask again. How confident are you that the data was for the old district? How confident are you that this source data was wrong and this company called the wrong district? I await your answer.

  20. me says:

    Here’s the deal. You want to say that you have seen something and have us take it as evidence. The problem you don’t seem to realize you have is that no one believes you. A fact is not established just because you claim it. It must have evidence and the indicia of believability. The way that you talk about polling in general and the outlandish claims you make about this poll specifically undercut even the minimum standard of believability. (For example, you do not understand that ABSOLUTELY EVERY DATA VENDOR WAITS ON THE STATE TO UPDATE THE VOTER FILE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO THIS WITH ZIPCODE MATCHES! The districts are drawn by census BLOCK, and every larger unit is in some way split somewhere in the state. And in point of fact, that’s what every major vendor did. And in point of fact, other polls this year have had to buy new samples and mail pieces have been sent to the wrong districts because vendors did not properly update their data.)

    The footnote is conclusive evidence because there is an immensely credible scenario whereby the footnote was right and the sample was wrong, and no credible way — for anyone with a shred of common sense, no less knowledge of the practicalites of polling — that the wrong footnote AND QUESTION / RESPONSE could have been produced from the right data. That’s like finding a pocketwatch on the beach and saying we have no way to know that the pieces did not randomly assemble themselves. Except that pocket-watch pieces JUST DON’T WORK THAT WAY. And random results do not just appear on polls that reflect the district formerly numbered 8 instead f the one newly numbered 8, complete with elaborate explanatory footnote. There has to be a reason.

    So I am as sure that this is phony as I am sure that the Dan Rather Bush military records were. Just about 100%. Because any other scenario is ridiculous.

    So, what is this “data” you saw”? You never say. How did the impressively engineered paragraph-long “typo” get on the survey — past several levels of review? You don’t say. How could “regions” that bear no relationship to the geography of the current 8th district, but which fit perfectly with the old 8th district, appear in the questionnaire if the data was from the new 8th district? You draw a blank. How could those regions have percentages attached to them? You offer no explanation.

    I do know a little something about logic and evidence, actually. Many of us, in fact, know about a little guideline called Occam’s Razor, which holds that the simplest explanation fitting the facts in evidence (facts in evidence, not your claims to facts in contradiction to all other available evidence), is the best explanation. You, on the other hand, assert a rule that would privilege the notion that rather than believe that our cars are run by combustion engines, we should believe that they are run by invisible bunny rabbits on an incorporeal treadmill which somehow just happen to supervene on all the principles of combustion mechanics. At least if someone who rants nonsense on the internet says so.

    Produce the raw evidence. Kahn has. No one has produced EVIDENCE to rebut it. Just an outlandish scenario followed by an even more outlandish claim about the facts of the matter. There’s pretty clearly a reason for that.

    Habeas corpus, fella. Produce the body. And produce some way to ensure that it wasn’t doctored.

    Jeez. You’re so stupid I’m starting to suspect that you’re Bill Hagan.

  21. CHelf,

    For an alleged “error”, the regional breaks and the footnote are so detailed (and wrong) that it may in fact prove the old thousands of monkeys in a room typing randomly can occasionally produce something non random.

    Here’ s a great challenge, to the pollster, assuming you are in contact with him. Have him release the 500 numbers that were called in the following format:

    County (code, fips code, name, your choice) and 3 digit area code+ 3 digit extension + XXXX.

    That will make sure that anonymity is preserved.

    OR, just give it up. Even if the “polling company” is still trying to stick by this dog (more like a desperate attempt by this desperate anti-immigration group) you are only serving to damage your credibility on here by continuing to insist that this is a real poll.

    The Mellman Group has polled for Congressmen, Senators, Governors and Presidents. I trust them. I’ve never heard of the Polling Company. And the Mellman Group has something going for them that the Polling Company don’t, particularly when it comes to Georgia, and that is tough fought victories working for Jim Marshall and John Barrow in 2002 and 2004. So something tells me that Mellman both knows Georgia and knows how to win here a little bit better than “The Polling Company”.

  22. CHelf says:

    1)A fact is a fact because it exists. I have seen the actual data that was pulled. I don’t know what other way there is to say that. I’ve repeated it but you cannot accept that. I’m sorry you don’t believe that. But since you have not seen anything beside a footnote, you have NOTHING factual to base your evidence on. Everything that you and Bobby Kahn have stated is based on a footnote that has been stated as being wrong by the sponsor and the polling firm. I don’t know why you insist on arguing something that has been disproven but it’s your reputation, not mine.

    2)Let me make clear that this district data was updated by the state much sooner than the first of October. Somehow making this about waiting on the state to update the data shows you have no knowledge of state data and when it was updated. You can argue vendors had incorrect data all day. First point is that the state had updated this long ago. The vendor that supplied this data did so long ago. This poll was done in October and the data matched the lines of the new district. You can keep trying to veer off some foreign tangent on your argument but the fact remains that this data pulled falls COMPLETELY within the lines of the new district. Argue when vendors wait on the state all day. It does not apply to this situation. Since you are now arguing this point shows me you cannot stick with an argument in confidence and resort to finding some other one.

    3)The footnote is not credible evidence because it does not A)match what came from the source data and B)was discredited by both the sponsor and the polling firm. If the source discredits it and says it was wrong, what other item do you need to believe it? While you claim the footnote applies to common sense, it does not apply to reality. It does not match. End of story. Yes there has to be a reason. That reason was given but somehow you don’t accept that.

    3)What is this source data I saw? I never say? Um, actually I said repeatedly. It was source data. What do you want me to say? I saw the source data. I saw the source data. I saw the source data. I still don’t think that will sink in with you but the obvious escapes you every post. The explanation? A mistake. The footnotes were incorrect. Call The Polling Company if you want an answer. I cannot speak for them on why someone typed the wrong counties there. I can again only speak for the source data they used and the calls that were made.

    4)You’re right. The simplest explanation fits here. A mistake was made in labels. But somehow even the simplest explanation causes you to rant over and over with no proof.

    5)Produce raw evidence? I’m still waiting on proof that matches Kahn’s claim. I see no people coming forth. I see no data coming from Kahn. Instead I see someone making an assumption that the people they attempt to discredit were actually factual. THAT defies logic. How can you say something that lacks credibility can be factual? How can you say a firm is incompetent but then say what they say is factual evidence? Calling someone a liar and then saying what they said was true makes no sense. Pick a side and stick with it. You’ve backed yourself in a corner with the logic of a prosecutor who discredits the defendant but then wishing to use his own statements as evidence.

    Why does anyone have to provide anything to rebut something that has never been proven? As far as I see here, Kahn made a claim on someone’s word and in the process says their words are wrong. You follow that logic.

    Produce the body? You’re claiming murder and offering nothing to back that up. Produce the body, the weapon…actually produce ANYTHING from something you’re not trying to discredit.

    Stupid? I’m not the one using the most flawed logic to say something is fact. When you come up with some data that went out of bounds of the real district, I’ll admit I’m stupid, crack head, or whoever you want me to be.

    I ask something simple of you. Give me your own personal confidence index here. I want you to break down and answer how confident you are that the source data was incorrect. The silence is deafening here. You cannot even back up what you said with something not either discredited by the pollster OR already called lies in the first place by you. Tell me just how confident you are that the source data was for the old district. I want a percentage from you of how confident you are that the source data the Polling Company obtained and used was from the old district and not the new district.

    Simple question. I’m waiting.

  23. CHelf says:

    chrishardcore…..give it up please. I am not arguing what the polls show, who is going to win, or anything of that nature. I am here stating that this claim by Bobby Kahn is incorrect. The source data pulled and used was correct. Simple.

    How can I damage my reputation by stating fact? I think you, ME, and Bobby Kahn have resorted to bank your reputations on a circumstantial footnote rather than actual proof such as actual people who were called. I’m asking for something more than a footnote. Can that be done?

    The point is Chris, that you and the rest of the gang are here discrediting a firm and their work. You are here claiming they are incompetent but then turn around and say how scientific, how sound, and how factual this footnote is. How can you discredit someone and then use them as proof?

    You can spout out the credentials of the Mellman Group all day long as well. You and ME need to stick to the issue rather than going off on tangents here. I could care less about the Mellman Group. I merely asked for something substantial from them proving they polled the correct district. Does it not make sense for you to hold them to the same standard you hold others? Or are you just going to take their PDF for fact?

    Knowing GA has nothing to do with the matter. Knowing polling and data and using good source data is what matters. I guess I can ask if the Mellman Group was used in 2002 to point out Barnes was going to win. It does not matter who ‘knows how to win’. What does winning have to do with polling for numbers? Perhaps you’re looking for the total package in consulting rather than just a poll. Suggesting a polling company is more about winning makes me think they are one of those firms who bump numbers up, use skewed samples, or other methods to help their own cause. If Marshall is relying on a DC pollster to win it for him, then by all means, let him do so.

    If anyone is sticking to this poll it is you and this little group still harping on it. WHo was the one who brought up some three week old poll? You all are acting like it was something but then try to discredit it. Who is on here harping on some three week old poll and talking about how desperate Collins is? Good God….this was a part of a series of nationwide polls based on immigration. It has no bearing on this race and it is old. Again, as long as we’re digging up old polls, let’s argue the 2002 polls showing Barnes winning out. Move on people. Either put up or shut up to quote another poster who loves that phrase. Either show me something besides a footnote or drop it and move on.

  24. CHelf says:

    chrishardcore,

    I respect you and all and even agree with some of the things you post here…scary I know. But when your website is still reflecting the old 8th on your maps, I just can’t count you as being up to speed.

  25. schleyguy says:

    CHelf,

    Sorry guy, but I’m not buying what you’re selling. Whether you’ve actually seen the source data is immaterial — all we have is your word. And some guy posting on a blog on the internet doesn’t count as evidence. And I don’t believe you’ve seen the data in any case.

    Besides, my aunt in Fayette county received multiple pieces of mail attacking Jim Marshall this September. Someone got the file wrong and sent a bunch of mail to the old 8th — and that’s a lot more expensive than a poll. But don’t take my word on it… I’m pretty sure it was written about in the media. In addition to that piece of anecdotal evidence, I know that the New York Times, Washington Post, and CQ all screwed up their online elections guides for the 3rd and the 8th.

    That, plus the footnote, is pretty damning evidence that this poll was fatally flawed. Besides, I’ve heard that this poll was shopped around and no media outlet would touch it.

  26. me says:

    A fact is a fact because t fits together with the rest of the worls in a way that makes sense (that is a reasonably broad definition that cab in essense be accepted by pragmatists, correspondence theorists, idealists, etc.). A fact is not a fact because you say so.

    Apparently your word is not good enough evidence for anyone. I know it is not for me. Because there is no conceivable way that it fits with the known facts in the world (about how polling gets done, about other polling results, about human motivations, about the voter file, etc.) And also because you are willing to formulate a tortured and unprecedented theory of evidence in order to assert that you are ENTITLED to have your asssertion without evidence provided as fact. When before you askedthat we check the actual data — and then said that

    For teh record, it’s not just a footnote. It’s a footnote (a paragraph long), a question, a percentage breakdown, a set of regions that match the old 8th but not the new 8th, the fact that no explanation proffered fits the way that polling gets done, the fact that these results are far off any other result that has been seen, the fact that Collins has released no polling (as challengers who get within the margin of error inevitably do — I cannot name you a counterexample across hundreds of campaigns for which I have seen internal data in the past), the fact that this sort of error has happened repeatedly in this cycle … all these things and more make me, as I said, just about 100% certain (a silly question, but it was already asked and answered).

    By the way, only CIS had claimed it was the right district. So far, The Polling Company has not. It is in fact the case that numbers were not officially released because they would not stand behind the data. (See, that’s an assertion on my part with nothing but my word to back it up; because you do not know me well enough to judge, I do not feel that I have a right to expect you to believe that it is true , and cannot insist upon its becoming part of the foundation of further argument, but I suspect that fair-minded readers have a suspicion that something like that is true at this point.) Let’s hope that their silence is not just because they’re taking the time to doctor the data (and that, Chris, is why a file of numbers supposedly called would prove nothing at this point; there’s been too much time and too much PR pressure to cover up).

    Forgive me for engaging in such abstract language, but apparently you confuse an illustrative metaphor with a tangent, and I am trying to avoid assisting you in compounding that error.

    CHelf, for you to expect us to believe your assertion, and for you to believe it yourself when you can’t even provide a real expanation (what was the nature of this “source data”, as that is not a term of art? when did you see it? what did it contain? what was the format? what are your qualifications for evaluating it –something more specific than the extremely vague characterization you’ve given?) suggests that you are rather intellectually immature or not quite right mentally. Is there some other explanation? Are you under a lot of stress? Are you impaired in some other fashion?

    Finally, you seem to confuse fact with opinion and to believe that your friends’ (o ryour own) unevidenced assertions trump an fact or analysis your foes might present. What makes Kahn’s case powerful is not who he is (though I have never heard his worse enemy call him a liar), but the facts he presents, which could have been presented by anyone. What makes the case you attribute to The Polling Company (again, they have not yet made claims; only CIS has) not credible is that their facts don’t fit. You whole case reduces to taking your allies’ conclusions as facts incapable of challenge, and declaring any case made by people you don’t like to be null and void because they don’t have “credibility”, even though they make no credibility-based claims.

    In sum, the fact that you’ve got some kind of troubling obsession with Bobby Kahn is just not interesting.

    Luckily, Georgia Democrats are compassionate conservatives and there is yet help for people like you. But I’m beginning to think Kahn needs to get some kind of restarining order.

  27. CHelf says:

    Schleyguy,

    You’ve heard it was shopped around? Sorry guy, don’t buy it. It’s humorous that you can come on here and make some assertion based on no fact and that’s fine for you but nothing else can apply to your standard. Nice logic guy.

    I don’t care who got what amiler. Stick to the actual topic here. I want concrete proof that this poll was conducted in the wrong district. It’s a simple request. Very simple. I know how hard you want to discredit something but please do yourself a favor and back up what you’re saying.

    Saying that the NYT’s screwing up something and a footnote is damning evidence is about as flawed as one could get. Bobby Kahn making claims in 2002 and this claim is pretty damning that he can’t get much right either. But I guess you’d take that as truth right?

    All you have is my word. All you have is the word of a footnote that the source of which has stated was incorrect. But somehow you believe some black helicopter conspiracy that the people you’re trying to discredit are being truthful. That makes quite a bit of sense. I have some swampland in FL I’d like to sell you.

  28. CHelf says:

    A fact is a fact because it makes sense??? What the hell kind of logic is that? I’ll have to remember that when I find other ludicrous statements you make on here.

    I’m just telling you that I have seen the data firsthand. I have seen the counties included. I have seen the phone numbers included. I have seen the exact data mapped and the overlay of the new district and it matches perfectly. That is fact. I have seen concrete evidence. What have you seen? Let us analyze.

    You only present a simple footnote of a very small portion of a poll conducted. In your argument you attempt to discredit this poll and the firm by saying that they are incompetent, some low level unknown firm, and cannot be taken as reliable. But then you somehow flip by saying their own words are reliable. While you accuse a ‘liar’ of telling the truth, this firm and the sponsor of this poll said the footnote was incorrect. Collins’ campaign was told this was incorrect. They stand by the data and the rest of the information published. But somehow you still try to discredit the same thing you say is somehow correct?

    When did I see the data? I see it now. Back when it was pulled. Tomorrow, Yesterday. What is my qualification to analyze it? Let’s see. Doing simple SQL commands, pivot tables, mapping in MapPoint, etc. good enough for you? Considering you have not seen it and can only base an entire argument on a discredited footnote, I’d say I come out much better on logic here.

    What are your qualifications for assuring that a footnote is the ultimate evidence that this was the incorrect district? What is your qualification? I’ve heard a supposed Master’s degree but all we have is your word on that. Somehow I am to take you as an expert by your word only?

    You can insult my intelligence all day long. Frankly I get a good laugh knowing you and a few others here seem so bothered by some old poll you clearly know nothing about. I want to know what facts and analysis you present. A footnote? Is that fact? Are you saying the firm you discredit is actually credible on this footnote? Are you saying this footnote is accurate and the poll is not? Partial accuracy? You are telling me that a footnote that has been debunked by the owner is credible? Are you telling me the only thing you have to present your case that this data was in the incorrect district is a footnote that has been essentially pulled?

    And for some strange reason you think I’m obsessed with Bobby Kahn. Quite the opposite actually. I use in my argument that the man who makes this claim doesn’t exactly have a good track record of making honest and factual claims. Someone with a poor track record and not backing up attacks with concrete fact sinks low on the reliability scale.

    I am still waiting for your confidence index. I still don’t see just how condident you are in your own claim. After all someone with a Masters in quantitative analysis and such a superior knowledge of polling samples should be able to come up with a simple percentage or some factor of how confident he is in his claims. For someone who shoots off such claims, you’d think they would say 100%. Seeing how you’ve backed off of substance and resorted to name calling leads me to believe you’re not as confident as you think.

    And to your point on my mental development and maturity, how many mature and intelligent people call others crack users, stupid, and numerous other childish names? I guess you have set the standard for geniuses by the words you use to describe others.

    I’m waiting on your answer. But I’m clearly not going to hold my breath. I can say I am 100% confident that this sample was pulled from the correct lines. Can you?

  29. me says:

    Five simple things:

    1. The defintiion of fact I offered is the one dominant in epistemology and the philosophy of science. That would be the people who study the nature of fact and truth as a vocation. Until you grasp that definition, one that most humans have intuitively, I guess you will still roll on nonsensically saying this is “just about a typo in a footnote”. It’s not. Its about the whole story making o sense unless the footnote was correct. Which would make the results wrong. (Oh, and how do you explain not only the footnote BUT ALSO the incorrect regions, with percentages attached?)

    2. I said I was just about 100% confident that the wrong data. This is now the third time I have said so. It is incumbent upon those who would say this is still correct to offer concrete proof, which would have to include a credible account of how the mistakes occured. (By the way, phraseology like “confidence index” in itself, or especially applied to this question, just marks you as a poseur,)

    3. To date the Polling Company has said nothing about this. Only the CIS has. And no one believes you have seen any data. You have offered not one concrete fact. A link where one could download the data would be a fact. But you would have to prove that the phone numbers had not been doctored to cover your tracks.

    4. You offer a new claim — that the Collins campaign stands by the data. Do they have the data?

    5. You claim that Bobby Kahn has a history of making doshonest claims. Probably a good idea to provide your name and address so he can file a defamation lawsuit. Save him the trouble of getting Erick to track you down through your IP address. That’s not a claim I have ever heard anyone make about him. I also still think he needs a restraining order, because you clearly do have some dangerous obsession with him.

    6. Here’s a bonus: Intelligent people call others stupid and fools/liars … when they actually ARE.

    7. Bonus 2: We here are correcting the record. But the Marshall campaign has offere an actual poll that fits with the previously known facts.

Comments are closed.