Segun
Sent from my iPhone
Wassa Fatti
Bangura disliked Obama long before the Libyan problem, in fact, before he even became the president. And he has all the right to choose his presidential candidates. But as a scholar and scientist he has provem to be woefully disappointing in his interpretation of evidence. We all have to be open to learning new disciplines. I believe Bangura needs to do some reading about how to aggregate and use polling data collected from different sources. The more he holds on to his failed view point the more irrelevant his political ideas will become, at least among some scholars on this forum. And that will be sad because he has a lot to contribute.
Kwaku
ChicagoSent via BlackBerry from T-MobileFrom: "Abdul Bangura" <theai@earthlink.net>Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:47:31 -0500ReplyTo: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.comSubject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURAMwalimu Wassa Fatti, you are a True Afrikan for not selling your soul simply because a person has some "African" blood. May Allah (SWT) and the Afrikan ancestors continue to bless you abundantly.----- Original Message -----From: Wassa FattiSent: 11/10/2012 11:55:05 AMSubject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURABro. Mensah,Mr. Bangura is angry about the USA's role in Libya. He was right to wish for Obama's demise. I wished for the same thing anyway; but not at the door of Romney. Whatever the case, I do not like Obama. SIMPLE!
From: dehasnem@uic.edu
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:45:22 -0600
Hi All,
In my view we should sentence Alhaji Bangura to read all columns written by Nate Silver. That will be the equivalence of being sent to a re-education camp to retool his intellect towards rational reasoning. He is a well- accomplished scholar in all respects. But why was he so wrong for so long? His hatred and disappointment in Barack clouded his rational thinking faculty. Most people on this forum were also disappointed in some of the president's decisions, indecisions, and occasional timidity. But we could look at the bigger picture and decide that the alternative was worse for all progressives. Bangura needs to be re-educated to differentiate between blatant falsehood and scientific polling. Nate Silver will do the trick, if some of us are to be saved from having nightmares like Emeritus Professor Assensoh just experienced.
Kwaku
Chicago
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:21 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
THU NOV 08, 2012 AT 08:05 AM PST
The 2012 polling hall of shame
5
attribution: Media Matters
So funny how they pretend.
Few things annoy me more in political analysis than the cherry-picking of favorable polls. That's why, with few exceptions, I dealt mostly in polling aggregates. But there's no doubt that my own assessment of the race was colored by which pollsters were saying what.
I obviously trust PPP. SUSA is good for the toplines, less good at crosstabs. Marist, CBS/NYT and ABC/WaPo are pretty solid. The internet pollsters—YouGov and Ipsos—were a curious (and ultimately successful) experiment. Pew is the gold standard, even when it's off. TIPP was a disaster in 2008, but it appeared more stable this time around. Some states have local pollsters so good they trump everything else, like Field in California and Selzer in Iowa. A few others were mildly interesting.
But there was a class of pollster that was so patently bad, they made me assume the whatever their results said, the opposite was actually true. So follow me below for a tour of this year's polling suck.
Steve Singiser's First Rule of Polling is, "If a poll doesn't look like the rest, it's likely wrong," and Gallup lived this mantra all cycle. While most polling showed a tight national race, Gallup consistently gave Romney 5-7-point leads.
Yet its long and storied history continued to give it credibility despite a disastrous recent track record. In 2010, Gallup claimed Republicans would win the Congressional national vote by 15 points. It was seven. In 2008, Gallup claimed President Barack Obama would win by 11. He won by seven. So how did Gallup save face? It used Hurricane Sandy as an excuse to quit polling for nearly a week, then delivered a late poll that showed Romney +1. No other pollster saw a major Romney erosion that week, and certainly not four points.
But even its last minute recalibration didn't save it, as its results put it 24 of 28 in accuracy. Below
No comments:
Post a Comment