Comments on: Why McCain Likes Obama’s New ‘Lead’ http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead National News in Context Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:51:40 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Rob http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead/comment-page-1#comment-37852 Rob Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:31:11 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com/?p=6366#comment-37852 A lead of 5% "plus or minus 3" means Obama could be anywhere from 2% (-3) to 8% (+3) ahead, with a 95% likelihood of his lead being contained in that range. It does *not* mean that that five percent is somehow consumed in the spread of six. A lead of 5% “plus or minus 3″ means Obama could be anywhere from 2% (-3) to 8% (+3) ahead, with a 95% likelihood of his lead being contained in that range. It does *not* mean that that five percent is somehow consumed in the spread of six.

]]> By: Total http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead/comment-page-1#comment-37853 Total Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:58:28 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com/?p=6366#comment-37853 <i>We agree on that one.</I><br><br>Sorry, formatting went astray on the previous post.<br><br>The point of your argument was that they are statistically tied. They're not.</i> We agree on that one.

Sorry, formatting went astray on the previous post.

The point of your argument was that they are statistically tied. They're not.

]]> By: Total http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead/comment-page-1#comment-37854 Total Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:56:39 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com/?p=6366#comment-37854 "We agree on that one.<br><br>Good. You do notice that it kind of undercuts your post, right? “We agree on that one.

Good. You do notice that it kind of undercuts your post, right?

]]> By: Total http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead/comment-page-1#comment-37855 Total Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:04:41 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com/?p=6366#comment-37855 <i>This entire lead is within the margin of error, so by the poll’s own (flimsy) standard, the candidates are statistically tied.</i><br><br>That's not what margin of error means. First off, Obama's up 5 and the margin of error is 3, so it's not within the margin of error. Second, what the poll does reveal is that there is a 95% chance that Obama is in the lead. Explanation from Kevin Drum, in simplified form, here: <br><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014294.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/indiv...</a> This entire lead is within the margin of error, so by the poll’s own (flimsy) standard, the candidates are statistically tied.

That's not what margin of error means. First off, Obama's up 5 and the margin of error is 3, so it's not within the margin of error. Second, what the poll does reveal is that there is a 95% chance that Obama is in the lead. Explanation from Kevin Drum, in simplified form, here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/indiv...

]]> By: Rob http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead/comment-page-1#comment-6721 Rob Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:31:11 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com/?p=6366#comment-6721 A lead of 5% "plus or minus 3" means Obama could be anywhere from 2% (-3) to 8% (+3) ahead, with a 95% likelihood of his lead being contained in that range. It does *not* mean that that five percent is somehow consumed in the spread of six. A lead of 5% “plus or minus 3″ means Obama could be anywhere from 2% (-3) to 8% (+3) ahead, with a 95% likelihood of his lead being contained in that range. It does *not* mean that that five percent is somehow consumed in the spread of six.

]]> By: Total http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead/comment-page-1#comment-6707 Total Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:58:28 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com/?p=6366#comment-6707 <i>We agree on that one.</I><br><br>Sorry, formatting went astray on the previous post.<br><br>The point of your argument was that they are statistically tied. They're not.</i> We agree on that one.

Sorry, formatting went astray on the previous post.

The point of your argument was that they are statistically tied. They're not.

]]> By: Total http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead/comment-page-1#comment-6706 Total Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:56:39 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com/?p=6366#comment-6706 "We agree on that one.<br><br>Good. You do notice that it kind of undercuts your post, right? “We agree on that one.

Good. You do notice that it kind of undercuts your post, right?

]]> By: Total http://washingtonindependent.com/6366/why-mccain-likes-obamas-new-lead/comment-page-1#comment-6705 Total Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:04:41 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com/?p=6366#comment-6705 <i>This entire lead is within the margin of error, so by the poll’s own (flimsy) standard, the candidates are statistically tied.</i><br><br>That's not what margin of error means. First off, Obama's up 5 and the margin of error is 3, so it's not within the margin of error. Second, what the poll does reveal is that there is a 95% chance that Obama is in the lead. Explanation from Kevin Drum, in simplified form, here: <br><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014294.php">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/indiv...</a> This entire lead is within the margin of error, so by the poll’s own (flimsy) standard, the candidates are statistically tied.

That's not what margin of error means. First off, Obama's up 5 and the margin of error is 3, so it's not within the margin of error. Second, what the poll does reveal is that there is a 95% chance that Obama is in the lead. Explanation from Kevin Drum, in simplified form, here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/indiv...

]]>