The Economist's poll of economists: Examining the candidates

-Bane said:
Your interest in the poll's respondents' opinions does not make the poll significant.
Click to expand...

Nobody has claimed statistical "significance."

A survey showing 71% of INDEPENDENT respondents say obama knows economics better, and that more of them support obama's economic plans and think he'd get better people in his admin... is certainly something perhaps only a few rabid partisans would ignore.

Folks can swing at strawmen but that's the naked truth.

It's a small survey. Take it or... *cough* bury your head in the sand, if you like.
 
Last edited:
@ musashi since he wants to troll rather than address the topic...

Do you think The Economist leans left or not?

How did the article "lean left" or show itself to be "purely partisan"?

How did they "blow it" when all they did is survey economists and report the results accurately?



71% of INDEPENDENT economists said they think Obama has more of a clue than Mccain. Are they "partisan"?
 
TseTse said:
Dear Triple.

The Economist simply sent out a survey to a bunch of "applied" economists. They weren't concerned with the response rates of different affiliations because they weren't trying to do a SCIENTIFIC study or to make broad averages. Right?
Click to expand...

If its not scientific, then why do you keep trying to use it as evidence? If you wanted to prove a point, you'd find expert opinions in the field explaining why McCain's plan is bad, or why Obama's is better. Instead you take a useless poll that has as much validity as internet polls, and you try to hold that up as a valid reason to vote or not to vote. For fuck's sake, you aren't any smarter than triple, you are just on a different side of the line this time.

P.S. The economist is better than this crap. I'm surprised they've sunk low enough to do this junk.
 
He doesn't seem to grasp the point we keep trying to pound into his little head.

If its not statistically relevant, why do you keep quoting statistics from it?

You're a walking contradiction, tsetse.
 
Art majors lecturing about social science methodology. :lol:

CarpeIppon said:
If its not scientific, then why do you keep trying to use it as evidence?
Click to expand...

Listen.

A simple survey like this is valid data. It's just nothing you should generalize from.

IT IS EVIDENCE that the respondents had the reported opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. The Economist has not tried to pretend it's a fancy poll of all economists and i haven't presented the results as such.

Nonetheless... 71% of the independents said they think Obama has more of a clue, and most of them supported obama's economic plans and felt he'd hire better people overall. Take it or leave it, but babbling about "statistical significance" is really to be confused.
 
Last edited:
:lol: @ dumpy still desperately trying to support his silly "the economist is leftist" argument...

triple said:
I run my own small business, I obviously know nothing of economics!
Click to expand...

Yes, you do photography which obviously makes you a pro economist and social scientist. :huh:
 
TseTse said:
@ musashi since he wants to troll rather than address the topic...

Do you think The Economist leans left or not?

How did the article "lean left" or show itself to be "purely partisan"?

How did they "blow it" when all they did is survey economists and report the results accurately?



71% of INDEPENDENT economists said they think Obama has more of a clue than Mccain. Are they "partisan"?
Click to expand...

If I help you, Clarice, it will be "turns" with us too.
Quid pro quo. I tell you things, you tell me things.
Not about this case, though. About yourself.
Quid pro quo. Yes or no?
Yes or no, Clarice? Poor little Catherine is waiting.

lecter.jpg
 
IS that really your argument, Triple?

They explicitly say it's not fucking scientific, most readers are not idiots like yourself, and they put out all the survey data for folks to read for themselves. Keep trying. The title is what it is. Accurate.








(yes, triple just pretended that being a photographer makes him an expert on social science methods and economics)
 
(yes, triple just pretended that being a photographer makes him an expert on social science methods and economics)
Click to expand...

That's like saying all Bill Gates knows how to do is program computers, so he doesn't know jack about running a business.

Every business does the thing they do well. No, taking photos does not make a successful business. Being profitable taking photos makes mine a successful small business.

Did you know most photographers fail within the first 6 months?
 
TseTse said:
:lol: @ dumpy still desperately trying to support his silly "the economist is leftist" argument...



Yes, you do photography which obviously makes you a pro economist and social scientist. :huh:
Click to expand...
:lol: @ TseTse still neglecting to admit that he's never even attended a higher level educational facility.

So did you graduate high school? You seem like you might have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top