alt.education

In article <%Xjxj.8167$xq2.5424@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
"Dennis Kemmerer" wrote:

> "Gunny Freedom" wrote in message
> news:glen42-6634A0.00172027022008@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article ,
> > "Dennis Kemmerer" wrote:
> >
> >> "Gunny Freedom" wrote in message
> >> news:glen42-AAF14E.23211226022008@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
> >> > In article ,
> >> > "Dennis Kemmerer" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Gunny Freedom" wrote in message
> >> >> news:glen42-B15B05.21491326022008@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
> >> >> > In article ,
> >> >> > Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Gunny Freedom wrote:
> >> >> >> >Neither Huckabee or McCain has any hope of defeating a Democrat in
> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >General. Only Ron Paul has the appeal to go head to head against
> >> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> >Democrat in the General election.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ron Paul vs either leading Democrat probably wouldn't clear 35%
> >> >> >> popular vote and get zero electoral votes. Half the Republican
> >> >> >> party
> >> >> >> would desert or stay home.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He's even more of a loser than Huckabee, who at least has won a
> >> >> >> couple
> >> >> >> of states, whereas I don't think Paul has even made 2nd place in
> >> >> >> any
> >> >> >> state.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> lojbab
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, you are mistaken. when I was canvassing, i encountered
> >> >> > better
> >> >> > than 35% of people who said they would vote for Ron Paul if they
> >> >> > thought
> >> >> > he could win.
> >> >>
> >> >> So can we assume the other 65% said they would vote for someone else
> >> >> even
> >> >> if
> >> >> they thought Paul could win?
> >> >
> >> > No, only about 20% were opposed to a Paul presidency, 15% were
> >> > ambivalent, and 30% did not share any opinions at all. You haven't
> >> > done
> >> > a lot of canvassing, have you?
> >>
> >> 'Canvassing' and 'polling' don't have comparable statistical validity.
> >> Care
> >> to publish your methodology?
> >>
> >> >> > The only reason they did not, is because the Mainstream
> >> >> > Media had convinced them that he could not win.
> >> >>
> >> >> They're right.
> >> >
> >> > According to the word of almighty Dennis?
> >>
> >> According to any reputable poll.
> >
> > You mean like Frank Luntz, who stated outright that his job was not to
> > find public opinion, but to get the answer that the people buying the
> > polls want?
>
> Nothing like a little failed attempt at disingenuity to go with my morning
> coffee.

Frank Luntz, as a professional pollster, gets more than twice as much
exposure as Zogby and Rasmussen combined.

> For the record, I'm talking about valid, reputable polling organizations
> such as Pew, Zogby, Gallup, and Rasmussen, which you yourself quoted below
> to support one of your points, or are those organizations' results valid
> only when they support your beliefs?

Pointing out the internal inconsistencies in polling data is indeed a
valid method for showing the weaknesses in polling methodologies.

> Oh, by the way, until you publish your methodology your 'canvassing' is
> meaningless.

knock on door. wait. When homeowner answers door, identify yourself
and hold a conversation with them. Record the results of said
conversation and use those results in a further analysis of the data.

> >> >> > According to Rasmussen
> >> >> > polls, Ron Paul also has more attraction amongst Democrats than any
> >> >> > other Republican running.
> >> >>
> >> >> Rasmussen also has Paul losing to Clinton 49% to 37% and losing to
> >> >> Obama
> >> >> 50%
> >> >> to 31%.
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> > which was mainly due to lack of name recognition, on account of a media
> >> > blackout.
> >>
> >> Ah, so it's a media conspiracy. Take an elementary political science
> >> course.
> >> It's called 'newsworthiness.'
> >
> > Haha! The man who beats Guiliani in every primary but one, gets 10% of
> > his coverage? yeahhhh surrree, and the fact that MSNBC is owned by the
> > same GE making TRILLIONS of dollars off of the war has NOTHING to do
> > with it I am sure.
>
> Did you even bother looking up 'newsworthiness?' The media's ignoring Paul
> is more likely due to the fact that his public support has never gotten
> above about 5%. But, I have no doubt that you and your fellow Paulbots will
> continue to whine about your imagined media conspiracy.

Receiving $35 MILLION in donations from ordinary citizens the average
size of which donations are $50 each, and creating the largest
grassroots movement in America in 200 years, are both quite newsworthy
events.

Simply your say-so that the inspiration of literally MILLIONS of
Americans should not be considered newsworthy, does not make it so.

> >> Stuff the attempts at condescension. You're not that smart.
> >>
> >> [snip preaching]
> >
> > Ad Hominems are the last resort of someone without a valid argument. 8-)
>
> It's not ad hominem; it's informed observation.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "Ad Hominem." It may help
you avoid athlete's tongue in the future. 8-)
--
Gunny Freedom's Blog: http://libertyline.blogspot.com/
Gunny's Hangout: http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php "Liberty's Price"
Become a Rifleman: http://appleseedinfo.org/