SpungoMcGoo Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 No it doesn't. It's not based on people who voted in the 2011 election. It's based on people who say they are certain to vote in the 2016 election. Och, sober up. 16% of people couldn't be arsed in 2011 but definitely will vote in 2016? Pull the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 The key point here is that Panelbase, even if you choose to accept their methodology, cannot be used in isolation as evidence of the gap between Yes and No. Their figures are merely to be added to those of all other pollsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Och, sober up. 16% of people couldn't be arsed in 2011 but definitely will vote in 2016? Pull the other one. Their pre July methodology actually only used for their headline data those with a > 80% likelihood of voting in the Scottish election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpungoMcGoo Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Their figures are merely to be added to those of all other pollsters. Absolutely. So why are you instead insisting that they be thrown away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Of any single pollster in isolation, yes. So it makes sense to consider all of the data from all independent pollsters, not just cherry pick one you happen to like. The overwhelming evidence from all available independent polling data is that Yes are so far beind they can't see No from where they are. Really? Are the rest of the pollsters using divergent methodologies? If so, how? Because otherwise a meta-poll of groups using the same basis (Westminster voting intention in 2010, for example) should form a pattern within a broad margin of error. But this pattern still doesn't show any relation to public opinion unless its methodology is sound. There is no convincing reason to suggest that it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I just did, HNDParp. That's odd, I didn't spot any links to back up anything in that post whatsoever. "It's true because I say so" isn't acceptable, sorry. That's a universal truth, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 And the evidence of the polling results suggests a correlation between Panelbase's outlandish approach to this and the near total disconnect its results have from those of the other pollsters. There is not a scrap of evidence to 'suggest' that certainty to vote leads to this 'disconnect', as opposed to the weighting of the sample itself, which contains a myriad of significant factors. That is quite simply a bare-faced lie from yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Absolutely. So why are you instead insisting that they be thrown away? He isn't. He's suggesting using *only* them and going ZOMG 5% is invalid and that estimated required swing should at least attempt to acknowledge the other major pollsters put it at upwards of an 8-10% swing. 5% swing is big. 10% swing is colossal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 That's odd, I didn't spot any links to back up anything in that post whatsoever. "It's true because I say so" isn't acceptable, sorry. That's a universal truth, I'm afraid. Others have already posted links and direct quotes to the criticism in question. Do we have to clean your nappy an help you belch too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Others have already posted links and direct quotes to the criticism in question. Do we have to clean your nappy an help you belch too? No thank you, and it's not up to me to prove your point, chum. Have you not been on the internet long or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 There is not a scrap of evidence to 'suggest' that certainty to vote leads to this 'disconnect', as opposed to the weighting of the sample itself, which contains a myriad of significant factors. That is quite simply a bare-faced lie from yourself. I didn't say it did. All I said was a poll that judges certainty to vote in the referendum entirely on certainty to vote in the Holyrood (or for that matter the certainty to vote at Westminster in 2015) has an obvious flaw in its methodology. Other pollsters have been using different techniques for weighting, using combinations of factors from previous voting habits to party affiliation to certainty to vote in the referendum and certainty to vote in various combinations of elections. Yet it is only Panelbase that is throwing up a remotely tight contest and it is only Panelbase that excludes those over whom there is doubt as to whether they will vote in a completely unrelated future election. And it is Panelbase, and only Panelbase, that our resident Nats use to arrive at their swing narrative. As someone who isn't an idiot and has some appreciation of methodology in social science doesn't this even slightly bother you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Quick question. Has the SNP boss slipped up by not attending the Wembley game. Should Mr Salmond A) attend the Wembley game B) as he apparently is,not attend or C) it matters not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Evidence required again, please. If you want to call vikingTon an idiot, be my guest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Quick question. Has the SNP boss slipped up by not attending the Wembley game. Should Mr Salmond A) attend the Wembley game B) as he apparently is,not attend or C) it matters not. Its that arsehole McAskill that will make a c**t of himself if he is let loose down there again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpungoMcGoo Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 He isn't. He's suggesting using *only* them and going ZOMG 5% is invalid and that estimated required swing should at least attempt to acknowledge the other major pollsters put it at upwards of an 8-10% swing. 5% swing is big. 10% swing is colossal. Keech. Swings of +10% happen regularly. TBH I don't much give a monkey's what straight Y/N polls say at this point anyway. We're more than a year out and we haven't even had the White paper yet. I'm much more interested in underlying stuff such as that revealed in last week's poll, eg nobody's buying the No camp's shite about more powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 If you want to call vikingTon an idiot, be my guest... Ah, you hadn't finished the sentence when i posted, somehow. Evidence for your earlier post would be welcomed, of course. If none is forthcoming, we can disregard it as fantasy. Won't that be fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Keech. Swings of +10% happen regularly. TBH I don't much give a monkey's what straight Y/N polls say at this point anyway. We're more than a year out and we haven't even had the White paper yet. I'm much more interested in underlying stuff such as that revealed in last week's poll, eg nobody's buying the No camp's shite about more powers. They don't happen "regularly". And we've never seen a shift of anything even approaching that magnitude in the space of 5 years, let alone 12 months, on the question of Scottish independence. Ah, you hadn't finished the sentence when i posted, somehow. Evidence for your earlier post would be welcomed, of course. If none is forthcoming, we can disregard it as fantasy. Won't that be fun? Nope, fail for you. Evidence for the assertions in my earlier post is on the thread and I refuse to cite links that have already been cited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie guevara Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Polymaths ahead on points this afternoon. A few haymakers from the real, actual people who have lives, but worn down by the close body punching of the egoists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Its that arsehole McAskill that will make a c**t of himself if he is let loose down there again. Oh right Reynard. I would of thought it was a chance for Rab C to enjoy a possible triumph but showing dignity, or a decent fighting draw or be magnanimous in defeat. All better than his Wimbledon showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 It's a friendly. But look who Scotlands opponents are Wolfie. How big is the travelling Tartan Army? The English are looking forward to it. This game is a step up from "friendly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.