Pointing it Out! wrote:
EPIC Flagpole wrote:My lord you're dense. It certainly is meaningful and relevant, as being off by such a factor is not "cold clear accuracy", which was my point [that you continue to omit for some reason]. If the figure was 2.1 vs 2.2, or even 2.1 vs 2.5, I'd agree it was pretty accurate, as these are both low enough figures AND within an acceptable tolerance to be considered accurate (the standard deviation and confidence interval also supports this theory by the way). 2.1 vs 3.3, especially when including an outlier like the +2 for Trump, certainly does not reflect "cold clear accuracy", which again, was the point. (Removing the outlier results in 2.1 vs 3.8, which is far less "accurate", considering just a single poll in the sample even matches the 2.1 figure!)
We shouldn't skew the term "accurate" by performing relative analyses for polls. Accurate means exact ("cold clear" or otherwise). These polls were far from exact.
Your ignorance is hilarious.
Or perhaps your trolling is just pretty cute.
Either way, you are dismissed.
I didn't think you and your English degree would have a response to actual quantitative analysis.
Chalk up another Flagpole to the douches.