politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In a 140 charcacter tweet Glen O’Hara sums up the YouGov in

HurstLlama said:

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

What do you think about the fact that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have refused to take a single refugee from the Middle East?

EPG said:

Muslims fleeing ISIS in the millions because ISIS wants to kill them
Some Westerners say: Let's repeat our behaviour to refugees in the Holocaust, because that was great

This:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

According to that, Muslim countries are the world most racist and intolerant countries in the world, after caste-based India of course.

If you are ranking racist countries don't forget to look at China and Japan - they will give even the worst of the Arabs a run for the title.

According to that study, China and Japan are average, but S.Korea is unusually intolerant for east Asia.

geoffw said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: I'm a bit sceptical (but then, I'm a scientist so I'm sceptical by training).

My scepticism on this occasion is as follows. OK, we have a hypothesis: the problem was largely one of differential respondent behaviour by age. It's a good hypothesis, but it still needs to be tested. And surely the very first test you would apply is to look back at 2010 and 2005. What didn't this problem show up then?

That. But also the premise of all statistical inference is that you have a random sample from the relevant population (i.e. people eligible to vote). That is what lies behind "margin of error" calculations. YouGov's selected samples simply don't conform to that desideratum.

Indeed. Plus, once you apply any kind of "correction" (shy tory correction, adding on half of the don't knows or whatever), margin of error is a total fiction when applied to the headline numbers

EPG said:

They are evil and your Cameron should not be palling around with them?

The George W. Bush school off politics, with the axis drawn in a slightly different direction. Very good

dugarbandier said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

I would agree with this post.
It must have been the same during the prohibition era in the US. Better to smuggle brandy than beer.
But the point of my post was that if someone does something bad while under the influence. It is the individual that bears the responsibility.
Booze or dope may have lowered the inhibitions, but it doesn't excuse their actions.

it would be interesting to know if things like domestic violence or street fights commonly associated with alcohol were reduced during the US prohibition era. I guess the data probably wasn't systematically collected in those days

Sadly not. Crime soared - through the empowered gangsters and the thinning of police resources.

dugarbandier said:

geoffw said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: I'm a bit sceptical (but then, I'm a scientist so I'm sceptical by training).

My scepticism on this occasion is as follows. OK, we have a hypothesis: the problem was largely one of differential respondent behaviour by age. It's a good hypothesis, but it still needs to be tested. And surely the very first test you would apply is to look back at 2010 and 2005. What didn't this problem show up then?

That. But also the premise of all statistical inference is that you have a random sample from the relevant population (i.e. people eligible to vote). That is what lies behind "margin of error" calculations. YouGov's selected samples simply don't conform to that desideratum.

Indeed. Plus, once you apply any kind of "correction" (shy tory correction, adding on half of the don't knows or whatever), margin of error is a total fiction when applied to the headline numbers

Even adjusting the sample to represent known population proportions introduces non-random biases. It reflects the statistically discredited idea of attaining a "representative" (as opposed to random) sample.

AndyJS said:

Scottish Independence based on oil price of $110.

Now $40.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f2fd24e-5d29-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3tdIvRF2Z
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy

Tories, ie Cameron , claimed we would have a 200 Billion oil boom if we voted NO , what happened to that , did you miss that you halfwit.

dugarbandier said:

EPG said:

They are evil and your Cameron should not be palling around with them?

The George W. Bush school off politics, with the axis drawn in a slightly different direction. Very good

I'm sorry I think the Saudis and ISIS are evil, this makes me exactly like George W Bush, good point

malcolmg said:

AndyJS said:

Scottish Independence based on oil price of $110.

Now $40.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f2fd24e-5d29-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3tdIvRF2Z
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy

Tories, ie Cameron , claimed we would have a 200 Billion oil boom if we voted NO , what happened to that , did you miss that you halfwit.

Evening, Mr. G., I will take your word that is what Cameron said and if he did the point is surely that he is a grubby little spiv who will say anything to anyone to get his way. Though to be fair that is hardly news, some of us have been pointing out the fact for a very long time.

I seem to recall having a conversation with someone on here (@taffys?) about the relative size of YouGov's age cohorts prior to the election: they looked wrong. Though even upweighting them wouldn't have fully fixed the problem; as Anthony says a further issue was that the groups within the cohorts weren't representative enough either.

The whole industry getting the sampling wrong is profoundly embarrassing as a solution; far more so than "late swing" (by def undetectable) or "shy Tories" (tricky to model). I suppose therefore that we should give due credit to those firms who have identified it as the predominant factor.

AndyJS said:

The idea of Trump running for president ought to be a joke. Instead he's the only one standing up for freedom of speech on American campuses. Amazing own goal from the left.

You are missing the point:

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 2h2 hours ago
Trump supporters on our NC poll coming out tomorrow: 51% want to shut down mosques in the United States, only 16% opposed

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 2h2 hours ago
Trump supporters on our NC poll coming out tomorrow: only 24% think Islam should be legal in United States, 44% illegal

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 2h2 hours ago
So Trump really speaking to his base with this new pronouncement- many would go even further and completely eliminate Islam in US

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 4h4 hours ago
Donald Trump at a record high level of support in our new North Carolina poll coming out tomorrow

Goodnight.

@isam

Great justice system in Scotland.

john_zims said:

@isam

Great justice system in Scotland.

He looks well for 58!!

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

BigRich said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

isam said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

isam said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Family of Tube terror accused called in police three weeks before Leytonstone attack

The family is understood to have told officers they wanted Mire committed under the Mental Health Act.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12036774/Leytonstone-Tube-attack-Muhaydin-Mire-appears-in-court.html

I do believe I called "Schizophrenic" on Saturday night

I will fess up, it was a slightly racist profiling technique, but big black man with machete to me says "Cannabis psychosis" rather than "World domination"

It is a view shared by a pretty prominent UKIP politician too...

It's nonsense to blame puffing for making him do it.
Declare an interest: I was a very heavy dope smoker for the best part of 20 years.
To the best of my knowledge, I've never stabbed anyone.

puff in the late 80s and early 90s was like shandy bass compared to the terps they smoke now

The list of recent terrorist acts made by heavy cannabis smokers is quite an eye opener

I stopped puffing 2 years ago (and still have the odd one now), am well aware of how strong the current strains are.

I don't indulge in that 'Vice' but its your chose and I would not wish to stop you, or anybody having that freedom.

So Long as it is illegal, there is good incentive for the stronger variety's, classic market forces will encourage stronger variety's that are therefore also smaller and easier to hide, both when still a plant and when prepared for smocking. Indeed the rise of 'Skunk' was very much a case of market forces, trying to concentrate so much that it could be smuggled easily.

Where it has been legalised e.g. Colorado, the trend, anecdotally at least, seems to be that milder variety's are gaining in popularity.

When will the day come when my taxes are not wasted on putting people in prison for doing no different than the Brewers who make my bear that I so much enjoy and are grateful for!

But the point of my post was that if someone does something bad while under the influence. It is the individual that bears the responsibility.
Booze or dope may have lowered the inhibitions, but it doesn't excuse their actions.

Quite right, similar to almost any other factors that might make action more understandable but not mitigate the responsibility of the person taking the negative action - plenty of others indulge in the same or suffer the same, and don't take that action, it remains a choice.

Good night.

JohnLoony said:

In the months leading up to the general election, there were three Ashcroft constituency polls in Croydon Central. They put Labour +6% ahead, then Conservative +4% ahead, then Conservative +6% ahead.

I'm fairly sure that I was part of the sample for two of those polls. I was phoned up by whichever organisation it was; I am wondering: how did they get my phone number? How did I become part of their sample frame? This might give weight to the theory that they asked the people who were more active, more political, more contactable, whatever, rather than being a random selection of Croydon Central people.

The samples are inherently biased because the very fact that respondents agree (or not) to participate makes them self-selecting. An instance of this is the "shy Tory" idea. But you might just as well hypothesise about, let us say, a "gobby ScotNat" phenomenon being over-represented in the opinion polls. Etc etc

malcolmg said:

AndyJS said:

Scottish Independence based on oil price of $110.

Now $40.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f2fd24e-5d29-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3tdIvRF2Z
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy

Tories, ie Cameron , claimed we would have a 200 Billion oil boom if we voted NO , what happened to that , did you miss that you halfwit.

do they not teach you manners and respect up in jockland

HurstLlama said:

malcolmg said:

AndyJS said:

Scottish Independence based on oil price of $110.

Now $40.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f2fd24e-5d29-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3tdIvRF2Z
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy

Tories, ie Cameron , claimed we would have a 200 Billion oil boom if we voted NO , what happened to that , did you miss that you halfwit.

Evening, Mr. G., I will take your word that is what Cameron said and if he did the point is surely that he is a grubby little spiv who will say anything to anyone to get his way. Though to be fair that is hardly news, some of us have been pointing out the fact for a very long time.

By all means the pair of you continue living in your dreamworld. You probably have little else.
This is what Cameron said
''David Cameron will use his first ever cabinet meeting in Scotland to promise a revolution in North Sea oil and gas extraction worth up to £200bn over two decades – but that this will only be affordable if the union stays together.
However, Cameron will try to undermine that claim by arguing that the "broad shoulders" of the UK government are needed to support North Sea oil and gas in the future.
Under plans to boost the industry, Cameron will agree to adopt all the recommendations of an independent report by Sir Ian Wood, a retired oil billionaire, who believes the creation of a new regulator and more cooperation between companies could increase production by up to 4bn barrels.'' (Feb 14)
At this time the SNP were projecting an oil price of upwards of $110. Where is it today? $41?

TheScreamingEagles said:

My favourite supermarket is Sainsburys.

Keeps the riff-raff out of my local Waitrose.

Are you considering standing for parliament anywhere?

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: I'm a bit sceptical (but then, I'm a scientist so I'm sceptical by training).

My scepticism on this occasion is as follows. OK, we have a hypothesis: the problem was largely one of differential respondent behaviour by age. It's a good hypothesis, but it still needs to be tested. And surely the very first test you would apply is to look back at 2010 and 2005. What didn't this problem show up then?

If I recall NumberCruncherPolitics correctly, it did show up then: we just didn't pay attention.

As a couple of people have pointed out below, there's been a problem with panel polling for some time. They've been coping by weighting the responses, but that only works if you know what to weight it to, and you don't: you just use the method that worked best in the past and hope. And when it doesn't work...kerblooey!

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jeremy Corbyn defends Stop the War Coalitionhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35035257

While he sees it as defending those who oppose war, rather than the unsavoury people at stop the war, which is not the same thing, I would think less of him if he stepped back from them. He helped found it, he chaired it, he cannot pretend his views are not the same as theirs or that he finds them distasteful, and he'd have no integrity if he tried.

The strongest reason for him to step down from it would be that his new role as Labour leader associates STW too closely with a certain (and currently dominant) political wing of the Labour party, rather than the broad coalition of (generally very left-wing) people that an anti-war coalition ought to be. Corbyn had a lot to do with STW at the senior levels... at the lower levels it was basically run by the full-on Trots (the SWP lot), as far as I understand the structure. Presumably still is, despite the SWP's recent nervous breakdown (don't think Left Unity, which was partly formed out of SWP malcontents, is particularly influential in STW, and while a lot of Greens are active in it, I don't think they have grabbed much control of the organisational structure).

I imagine the Greens, SWP, Respect, Left Unity and various other shades, as well as the politically non-aligned members, would prefer STW not to become viewed as a Corbynista side-project, regardless of how delighted they were to see the advent of the Corbynist Age in the Labour Party.

geoffw said:

JohnLoony said:

In the months leading up to the general election, there were three Ashcroft constituency polls in Croydon Central. They put Labour +6% ahead, then Conservative +4% ahead, then Conservative +6% ahead.

I'm fairly sure that I was part of the sample for two of those polls. I was phoned up by whichever organisation it was; I am wondering: how did they get my phone number? How did I become part of their sample frame? This might give weight to the theory that they asked the people who were more active, more political, more contactable, whatever, rather than being a random selection of Croydon Central people.

The samples are inherently biased because the very fact that respondents agree (or not) to participate makes them self-selecting. An instance of this is the "shy Tory" idea. But you might just as well hypothesise about, let us say, a "gobby ScotNat" phenomenon being over-represented in the opinion polls. Etc etc

A "genuine" polling company call is indistinguishable at first from a call from any of the apparently hundreds of "opinion pollers" which are thinly disguised marketing exercises. This, coupled with the daily calls from "Microsofts Technical Department" etc. leads many people to use one of the blocking mechanisms. In our case, if the number isn't recognisable, or is "withheld" or "unavailable" the phone doesn't get answered. Genuine callers ..... eg the local hospital ...... will leave a message.

In the previous thread, someone referred to "Hitler's soft Viennese accent" to which someone expressed surprise. There is a recording of Hitler talking privately (when he didn't know he was being recorded) rather than speaking in public, and his voice is noticeably softer than his public speech-ranting. I don't know about the Viennese accent though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec