PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
nobody is really happy with Obama, 1yr in office and NOTHING done.....if he had a liberal wife she would made sure he got sh*t done, at the least
The Young Turn Against Obamacare
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
nobody is really happy with Obama, 1yr in office and NOTHING done.....if he had a liberal wife she would made sure he got sh*t done, at the least
This is what you said in post number 15:
...it does not contain the entire data; it is simply a summary of the results of the entire survey (broken down by the various questions asked)...
...If that pdf file was the entire data set, it would not be in that format. You would be able to identify individual respondents and their answers to the various questions.
Basically, if the pdf file was the full data, as you claim, it would be the complete, raw data. Again, you are misleading.....If that pdf file was the entire data set, it would not be in that format. You would be able to identify individual respondents and their answers to the various questions.
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the article and/or the poll is biased. You can only do that through ignorance and deception (as I have shown numerous times in this thread).
Again, WHY DO YOU ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM?
You have now dodged that question twice in this thread as well in another thread. Your avoidance of it is very damning.
so, in other words, you still have not proven the claim. you have no statistical data directly backing it up.
whether someone COULD extrapolate it is not the point.
the point is you have nothing backing that claim directly, nor is it to be found. funny they found it.
and of course you are attacking fox for pointing this out.
it's funny how people learn your style and use it back against you, all you do is attack personally. it gets very old.
bias was only part. she was pointing out you had nothing TO BACK IT UP WITH.
it's up to you to prove your poll. find where the numbers can be extrapolated to prove your claim. they're not in the pdf's.
that only gives age range as a percentage of polled. not percent of how they answered questions.
So shag, there is indeed no data that has been presented that backs up the claims made in this article - is there?
Also, I have showed bias - just look at the numbers regarding who this group voted for in the last presidential election. Also I have pointed out that one of the questions is an obvious push poll question, it invalidates the results, because it creates bias.
I have proved that the article and the poll is not only biased, there hasn't been any data presented to back up its claims.
Shag the burden of proof is now on you to 1) show the data that backs the claims made in the article and 2) explain why the polling base used in the poll is not biased.
"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."
I have already shown how the existence of such data can be logically inferred from the information present. Only by either not reading what I said, having no clue how polls are conducted (and how that information is processed and analyzed) or conveniently ignoring what I sad could you have missed that.
Now you are making another fallacious argument by claiming that ALL the data has to be presented; you are deceiving. Again.
That makes three times you have avoided my question in this thread alone. In each case you have attempted to further deceive.
In this thread you have; set up straw man misrepresentations of my arguments, asked loaded questions, made fallacious "negative proof" arguments and now you are moving the goalposts as well as using the misleading Nazi propaganda technique, die Große Lüge. Since fallacious arguments are, by definition, deceptive, there is no question that you are attempting to deceive. Yet you continue to avoid the question...
For a FOURTH time I ask; WHY DO YOU ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM?
I'm 25... The problem lies in our inefficient government. I'm not right or left, but there's a serious problem there.
Just look at our national debt. We are the generation that will pay for it. I for one don't mind being taxed more, so long as our government is efficient with the money we pay.
This healthcare is the least of our country's problems. Fiscal solvency should be our #1 priority.
interesting you can infer something not present. there is no statistical data that shows the age breakout in the first post. just show it.
if you can't, then you are the deciever. but that's just common for you.
and judging by how far out of your way you are going to avoid proving your claim, i ask of you
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Awww, the wittle boy is stomping his wittle feet now. Big surprize.
Fox has argued from her first post that the data from Zogby doesn't support the claim that "The Young Turn Against Obamacare", even the articles you linked to ZOGBY for the Maine and ND data don't make that claim. You have FAILED to provide a shred of evidence to back up your/Dick's claim that "The Young Turn Against Obamacare". All you've done is "infer" that claim. If you are able to do that, then it is also fair to infer that the OLD SUPPORT Obamacare, and that the OTHER 48 STATES SUPPORT OBAMACARE.
It is obvious you are so blinded by your bias against Obama that you'll cling onto any crumb of an argument against him without performing the least amount of critical thinking when digesting that argument. Your desperation to paint the healthcare debate in the worst possible light and protect the health insurance industry is blatantly obvious. I'll ask YOU AGAIN, what is your connection the health insurance industry? I've asked this before and you've avoided this question. Time to fess up.
As typical, you've painted yourself into a corner and can't find a way out except to deflect the argument towards Fox and project the deception away from yourself and upon her. You are a sad, sad little boy.
I left out the shouting...
Ah, time to bring out the Nazi card... rarely works, but good for something no doubt. People will believe the big lie before they believe the little one? So, what exactly is the big lie here shag?
I have been consistent, pointing out that this article has presented nothing to back its claims. I have asked you if you have that available. Rather than admit that this article is lacking in many things, you continue to try to stand behind it rather than back down. I believe that you are far more guilty of die Große Lüge than I.
Shag-once again, I haven't attempted to deceive anyone. I was pointing out that the article you posted has no data to support its claims. The data that you found (and perhaps is the data that this article is based on) was flawed, it not only didn't address the accusation made within the article, but also it was guilty of bias within the poling base, bias within the questions asked, missing information, as well as not in a format that allows for analysis of age, etc.
Grow up, admit the article has fatal flaws, and move on. Or I might be tempted to follow hrmwrm's lead and wonder, out loud, why are you trying to deceive others?
And, as a little hint - as Johnny points out - rather than blindly posting articles just because they portray the administration in a bad light, you might want to take the time to analyze the article, as well as your reasons for posting it first. You have fallen into this trap before, and will continue to do so, unless you start to realize your overwhelming need to discredit the administration is clouding your judgment.
You assert that you have proven something that you have earlier only claimed and backed up with mere speculation and tangentially related facts (claims of being "biased" and of push polling, specifically). In neither case have you cited any information that logically supports those claims yet you are now asserting that you have proven them. That is a lie.
In fact, in the case of the push polling claim, you have ignored a direct and legitimate challenge to the claim and instead have gone from asserting it as fact to asserting that you have proven it, as fact.
You have also ignored the very relevant challenge to show how Zogby could conduct a questionnaire and have the information to break down the demographics by age of the entire poll (as they do at the bottom of the pdf file) and not have the information to be able to break down the results of each question by age (which you are asserting as fact).
You are ignoring inconvenient challenges to your claims; you are not discussing things here in good faith.
BTW, that is now 4 times you have ignored my question in this thread alone; Why do you attempt to deceive people on this forum?
Simply ignoring legitimate critiques like that is further proof of your lack of good faith here...
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
fact as far as the information you have provided. if there is other evidence for your claim you wish to put forward, then do it. otherwise you have still not proven your claim.
if the breakdown is there somewhere, then i suggest you show it.
otherwise it's equivalent to propagandist bs.
you posted the claim, show where it's accurate or cease and desist.
i pose your question back to you again.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
QFT. This is very telling. She generally ignores anything that she can't answer.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Seems Zogby is suffering from CDD (Credibility Deficit Disorder):
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
lol
Not ignoring - busy - sorry...
So, I thought since you were an expert in polling Shag I assumed you knew what push polling entailed... but... let's go back to...
Push Polling 101…
The question that screamed to me push poll…
Supporters of the healthcare bill say healthcare is a right and that this legislation will assure that every American has health insurance. They say it will lower health care costs and reduce the federal deficit. They say that anyone who wants to continue their current healthcare policy can do so and that it will stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people with existing conditions. Opponents say the bill will cut Medicare $400 billion and cover 36 million new patients without more doctors, leading to possible shortages, long waits for care and rationing especially for the elderly. Opponents also say it will require all uninsured to pay $15,000 for health insurance or pay a fine of two and one half percent of their income and that it will drive up premiums for those how have insurance by $2,000 a year.Based on these arguments, would you say that you support or oppose the health care bill proposed by President Obama and now making its way through Congress?
1) If you look at the question the ‘pro’ side is full of ‘fuzzies’. For example there are no hard numbers in the ‘pro’ side. If it were a legitimate question it would not just state:
They say it will lower health care costs and reduce the federal deficit.
It would state:
They say it would lower health care costs by an average of $2,000 per family per year.
By only putting hard numbers with the ‘against’ side of the question the people who have written this particular question are lending credibility to the ‘against’ side, with the use of ‘hard’ numbers.
2) Also by ‘grouping’ all of the ‘pro’ side at the first and all of the ‘against’ argument at the end of the question is a classic way that push pollers work. By grouping all the things you are ‘pushing’ at the end of a question, it is likely that is all the person being questioned will remember. If this was an example of good polling and not push polling, they would group like attributes together. So, part of the question would read like this:
The supporters of the healthcare bill say it will lower health costs for the average family by $2,000 a year, and it will help reduce the federal deficit in the next 15 years by 1.5 percent. The opponents of the healthcare bill say it will drive up premiums for those who are now insured by $2,000 a year and will require all uninsured to pay $15,000 for health insurance or pay a fine of two and one half percent of their income. Based on these arguments, would you say that you support or oppose the health care bill proposed by President Obama and now making its way through Congress?
3) However, even that ‘correct’ example is a little bit too long. That is another strike against the original question – it is too long (you noticed that mistake Shag). Because of the length the people polled have forgotten anything about the first part of the question (especially since it has no hard numbers to ‘latch’ onto) and are only remembering the ‘hard’ facts related in the second part of the question, Once again, pushing the person being polled into a direction that the pollster wants them to take
So shag, this is just one of the reasons this poll is flawed. Push polling, even with one faulty question, will invalidate a poll.
That wasn't so hard now was it?
Though your third point is a bit of a stretch, the first two were good points that logically support your conclusion. I won't go so far as to say it is push polling, but it is in that gray area of possible bias which makes the question worth rejecting. I will point out that most of the rhetoric coming from the left has been "full of 'fuzzies'" as you say, while the right has been pointing out deception and trade-offs in the legislation; necessitating more numbers (the difference between focusing on a "solution" and focusing on trade-offs). Still, it is not unreasonable to expect a similar means of articulating the positions. However, trying to articulate the positions in the question was a questionable decision in the first place.
Frankly, the healthcare debate has become like the abortion issue; near impossible to poll on directly. Most any way you word a question on this issue can be considered biased. However, it is rather telling when you word it different ways how sharp of a change there is. For instance, if the question simply repeats all the rosy rhetoric to sell the legislation you get one result, but when you point out the costs of the legislation, you get a very different result. This is especially true concerning the public option.
Trends are also worth noting. For instance, in most any reasonably sampled poll with a consistent wording of the question, the trend has been moving away from supporting Obamacare and, specifically, the public option (that has even been true for not so reasonably sampled polls).
Now, care to show me how they can have the info to be able to breakdown the poll by age but not be able to do that for each question?
Though your third point is a bit of a stretch, the first two were good points that logically support your conclusion. I won't go so far as to say it is push polling, but it is in that gray area of possible bias which makes the question worth rejecting. I will point out that most of the rhetoric coming from the left has been "full of 'fuzzies'" as you say, while the right has been pointing out deception and trade-offs in the legislation; necessitating more numbers (the difference between focusing on a "solution" and focusing on trade-offs). Still, it is not unreasonable to expect a similar means of articulating the positions. However, trying to articulate the positions in the question was a questionable decision in the first place.
Frankly, the healthcare debate has become like the abortion issue; near impossible to poll on directly. Most any way you word a question on this issue can be considered biased. However, it is rather telling when you word it different ways how sharp of a change there is. For instance, if the question simply repeats all the rosy rhetoric to sell the legislation you get one result, but when you point out the costs of the legislation, you get a very different result. This is especially true concerning the public option.
Trends are also worth noting. For instance, in most any reasonably sampled poll with a consistent wording of the question, the trend has been moving away from supporting Obamacare and, specifically, the public option (that has even been true for not so reasonably sampled polls).
Now, care to show me how they can have the info to be able to breakdown the poll by age but not be able to do that for each question?
Ah, now shag you can look at questions in a poll and understand what constitutes push polling - You are welcome for the lesson...
I will give you a little hint - look at the next abortion poll that you see and check to see if it is missing questions regarding how you feel about imposing on others choices. That is almost always missing in the 'hired' polls. They will ask how you feel about abortion, if you would have an abortion, if you think abortion is wrong. But, they will not ask, 'do you think that others should be denied abortions in the first trimester?' By not asking that question - moving the person being polled away from themselves, and projecting their ideals onto others - the polls become very one sided in their results.
So, Zogby does have the info - doubtful that Morris does. The breakdown of age for each question is not available in the data we have for Zogby. Can you go back to Zogby, and find that out? Yes, if you have the money, honey.
However, we don't have that information, have no reasonable chance of getting that information, nor has it been presented anywhere to us other than in the article, and there with no accompanying 'back-up'. And we don't have the data regarding how the people polled changed with regards to the commercial, no one, as far as I can tell has that data, because the question on whether or not the commercial was viewed by any of the people polled wasn't asked.
It is a flawed poll, a misleading article, and critical data is missing.
And yes it was hard - it is like force feeding an angry sparrow.
I will give you a little hint - look at the next abortion poll that you see and check to see if it is missing questions regarding how you feel about imposing on others choices. That is almost always missing in the 'hired' polls. They will ask how you feel about abortion, if you would have an abortion, if you think abortion is wrong. But, they will not ask, 'do you think that others should be denied abortions in the first trimester?' By not asking that question - moving the person being polled away from themselves, and projecting their ideals onto others - the polls become very one sided in their results.
Zogby has the age breakdown info - but there is a good chance that Morris doesn't. He probably bought only what he asked for - the questions... Zogby will charge more as they drill down the data. I would suspect that if Morris had the data, presented as I had shown earlier (age, gender, race, party, the break down that most people who look at political data use) he would have presented it that way. But, if he does have that data, and didn't present it that way, I would suspect that he is covering something up. Since the cover up part would be hard to prove - I have to say that Morris doesn't have that information.
So, Zogby does have the info - doubtful that Morris does. The breakdown of age for each question is not available in the data we have for Zogby. Can you go back to Zogby, and find that out? Yes, if you have the money, honey.
However, we don't have that information, have no reasonable chance of getting that information, nor has it been presented anywhere to us other than in the article, and there with no accompanying 'back-up'. And we don't have the data regarding how the people polled changed with regards to the commercial, no one, as far as I can tell has that data, because the question on whether or not the commercial was viewed by any of the people polled wasn't asked.
It is a flawed poll, a misleading article, and critical data is missing.
And yes it was hard - it is like force feeding an angry sparrow.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
What's the matter, fox? Didn't get enough traction with my other quote in your siggy?
Trolling Foss? Heck, why should I use it since you are now using it? You seem quite happy to show off your vain side - quoting yourself in your own signature...
Oh, how goes the essay on your conspiracy theory?
You haven't show that it is, in fact, push polling. All you have shown is an arguable bias in one question. Bias in a poll and push polling are not synonymous. Bias is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for push polling.
For it to be push polling, it needs to be an intentional bias (something you have not shown to be likely) aimed at promoting an agenda and that needs to be present throughout the poll. Otherwise, it is simply one bad question.
That is nothing more then speculation.
The fact that Morris was able to draw conclusions concerning the age breakdown for specific questions in his article indicates that he does have the info to breakdown age for each question. Unless you are accusing him of simply making up numbers...
Also, your story has changed. In post #12, you cited the fact that ,"the individual question results aren't keyed to age bracket" as proof that, "it is impossible to tell how that age group in either state was responding to particular questions."
When I pushed you about it in post #13, you responded in post #15 by asserting that the pdf file provided by Zogby on their website was "the full data". You were implying that Zogby didn't have the data to be able to breakdown the questions by the age of who responded. Now you are changing your story to say that only Morris doesn't have that info.
The fact of the matter is that Zogby could not have reported on this poll in the manner they did without operationalizing the data from the questionnaires and running them through a stats analysis program (like SPSS). So, they had to make a file for that data and would likely have emailed Morris that file. The fact that Morris was able to compare the two variables of "age breakdown" and "answers to a question" indicates that he in fact does have that data to be able to conduct that analysis himself.
For what you were claiming to be true in earlier posts (starting in post #13), Zogby would have to be able to conduct a questionnaire that would give them the age breakdown of the respondents but miraculously not allow them to be able to compare that information to the responses of those same respondents to other questions asked in the same questionnaire.
For the new story you are spinning (starting in post #44), Morris has to be flat out lying and fabricating information.
Look who commissioned the poll - look what they are doing with the poll 'results' - look at the demo of the people polled - look at the questions asked - and then compare that to the agenda that Morris is trying to push.
Shag - all the classic earmarks of push polling.
Intentional push polling created to garner a response so that Morris can raise more money for their cause. If you can't admit that shag, then you are far more biased than this poll.
Given the right questions and the right polling base I can tell you that polls show that black is white and that Obama is the best president we have ever had.
And yes, shag, one bad question does invalidate this poll.
The results that Zogby released doesn't have that information and if you use rough percentages you end up with the same data that Morris has quoted (comparing percentage of younger people polled against the percentages of people polled who are against the healthcare proposals). You can't do that - because you can't just blanket-ly carry those age qualifiers across the question results.
Sorry - I meant to say full results-
Shag - I deal with comparable data on a daily basis, I am sorry if I got one word wrong. You can continue to berate me, fine - but I know what I am talking about.
And I have meant all along that Morris doesn't have the data, I have made that clear - and guess what - we don't have the data either. Dogs might have the data but that doesn't help us to see if Morris is creating a false impression.
You can use the word 'imply' But I will use the words 'didn't imply'... sorry shag - it was Morris...
And the results that are available to us aren't keyed to age breakdown - can you find it shag - I certainly can't.
Heck shag - I don't know what Morris has, but I suspect he doesn't have full data. He didn't even link the data we are using to his story, probably knowing that it wasn't complete, nor did it confirm his points in the story.
shag - you can continue to try to weave some sort of 'all the data is available to get these results' story - but until I see the data, I don't believe anything that a website, with a confirmed agenda, would tell me.
And, once again, there is no way to tell if the commercials aired had any impact on the numbers given. We don't have numbers before the commercial run dates, and we don't have anything in the poll that asks if the people polled saw the commercial.
Once again shag...
It is a flawed poll, a misleading article, and critical data is missing.
I have proved all three points - you run around in circles chasing feathers...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Tsk tsk, fox, must really bug you that I am not ashamed of what I post. Figures the only thing you can quote is something you took out of context. But then again, that's what you propagandists do, isn't it?