Quote:
Originally Posted by mdgator05
"Most respected?" Another sign of the conservative bubble. Only there could the single worst performing pollster (and the 17th rated pollster out of 20 in 2008) be considered "the most respected." I can see why you would personally respect the worst polling outfit over the last two elections. Gallup has been so bad for so long that they are the go to story every time a Republican is losing a couple of weeks prior to an election, based on a horrible outlier they put out in 1980 for their final poll. They sure seem super well-respected.
By the way, we don't decide national elections based on popular vote. And there simply wasn't a state-by-state path for victory for Republicans, as I explained to you over and over again before the election.
And us nerds will have to deal with your whole high school awesomeness thing. Peaking in high school is pretty cool. We will just have to settle with being right (like we were about this election) and cry into all of our money.
Hmm I only see engineering, computers, mathematics, and statistics in the top 10 earning degrees. Look at all those nerds out-earning everybody. But I bet that high school reunion was really fun. I wouldn't know, as I have to spend mine in a 5 star hotel in Germany on a business trip accompanied by my former All-American Swimmer wife. It is indeed tough being looked down upon  |
LOL!
1. re: Gallup, I meant most respected among the general public, obviously, not necessarily among that pointy-headed subgroup of the public that I'd label as, "Nerds Who Study Polls." Although evidently even some of them recognize that Gallup is a top name in polling. "Gallup is the oldest and one of the most respected polling organizations in the world," according to
Alan Abramowitz of DailyKoz. Is he inside the "conservative bubble," too?
2. re: mandate, no, we don't decide elections by the popular vote. But neither do we proclaim a "landslide" or a "mandate" on the basis of the electoral college vote when the popular vote was so close. Or at least, we don't do that if we have any freakin' sense.
I couldn't find a definition for electoral mandate online but it's commonly understood to mean when the margin of victory in an election is sizable enough to be regarded as a solid endorsement of the winning candidate's policies, such that he or she shouldn't feel too much need to compromise with those on the losing side (for awhile, at least).
When the electorate at large is split by less than a handful of percentage points and leaves the losing party with plenty of power to thwart the winner's objectives at the legislative level, it's questionable whether there was the type of mandate described above.
3. re: "Once a nerd, always a nerd," I get a kick out of goading people who portray themselves as fair and objective-minded into revealing the basis for the personal biases that make them anything but. It's funny. And so easy. Usually all you have to do is mention high school and they're off and running.
Linear Mode
