Moonbox

So...you're suggesting that I made up a mathematical formula? It's from the same place as before. You made me look up how to embed PDF hyperlinks though, so I guess I learned something from interacting with your belligerent stupidity, for once: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf No, muppet. That's the number you use to capture 95% of a normal distribution, or a large polling sample like this. I suspect I know where you got that 97.5 number though, in your desperate interweb search: Way to prove (once again) you're a complete assclown. The formula I cited was for one poll. Since the z-score (1.96) is a constant in this equation. Saying I "calculated it wrong" is probably one the single stupidest things you could have possibly said, but I salute your dedication to the clownish arts. Regardless, while I've been posting how the math works, and you've been squirming around making shit up, you still refuse to answer a pretty simple question that highlights the painfully obvious error in your logic: What happens if you add +/- the margin of error to the PPC's polling support? Are they between 3.6% and -1.8% support? 🤣

Who are you talking to here? Why are you answering yourself? 🤔 The question isn't the margin of error on the whole poll, but rather the margin of error on the difference between two answers (Liberal and Conservative vote percentage). This is the formula you'd use to figure that out: For the Nanos poll you quoted at the start, the answer's ~3.8%. If the Liberals and Conservatives were within that margin for that poll, you could say it's not a statistically significant lead. For a two party race, P1+P2 would = 100% of the vote, which would yield an answer of 5.3% (roughly twice their margin of error). This doesn't work for our election, however, because the Liberals and Conservatives aren't getting 100% of the vote, or even close to that. Let me know if you need a walkthrough, but I'm sure you'll totally figure it out, genius that you are. After all, you've uncovered the secrets of 100-50...🤡👌 (As an added bonus for you, today's Nanos Poll is showing a statistically insignificant lead for the Liberals. Rejoice!)

I quoted a university professor's paper on how margins of error works on polls with more than two parties. You quoted PEW research talking about a two-party poll. Which sort of election does Canada have? I appreciate how reliably you project your fragility onto others - like clockwork! 😆👌

This, folks, is what we call delusional coping. Behold it in all its glory.

You posted how it works on a binary poll with only two options, which this election isn't. Good job, donkey! 🙃 Answer the question: Give me the range of likely probabilities for the PPC's 0.9%, + or minus a 2.7% margin of error. Are they in a "statistical tie" with the Greens and the Bloc? According to your "definition", they are! 🤣 Except they're not, because we aren't a two-horse race with only two candidates, we have numerous other parties pulling significant portions of the vote, and thus cannot just slap the margin of error uniformly across every party. Often pollsters, journalists and political scientists calculate this as twice the reported margin of error of the poll. ... While this is the correct conclusion when there are only two possible survey responses, it is not correct when there are more than two possible responses, which is in fact virtually always the case. How much difference this makes depends on how many responses are outside the two categories of interest. ... Whenever we compare proportions of candidate support within a single survey, this is the formula we should use. For low amounts of undecided or third party support the results will be close to the “twice the margin of error” formula, but the correct margin of error will be less than this as the proportion of “other” responses increases.

It is, and your "detailed explanations" are nothing more than your typical useless ranting and bloviating - telling us how you need things to be so as not to look like an assclown, rather than how it actually is. Why's that? Because it doesn't work with the reality you're manifesting for yourself? Do we not have more than two parties, and are those additional parties not eating up a sizeable chunk of the vote? That's the thing. It's not about "either party". It's about all the parties. You can't just slap +/- 2.7% on to the polled numbers, which should be pretty clear just by trying to do so with the PPC. Quick! Give me the range of likely probabilities for the PPC's 0.9%, + or minus a 2.7% margin of error. Are they in a "statistical tie" with the Greens and the Bloc? I'll wait for your answer...🙄

I would call it rather explicit and outright lies promoting the narrative and propaganda of Vladimir Putin - because that's what Trump has been doing! I'll tell you what - we've contributed a higher % of our GDP than the USA, AND we haven't had a buffoonish lying asshat leader who promotes Russian propaganda. 🤡

True enough, or our companies get outvisioned and outcompeted by foreign rivals...in certain other cases. 😆 Either way nobody is saying any of it is Trump's fault.

Yeah those kept coming up during the Leafs game. Seems like the Conservatives are finally acknowledging him as the liability he is, and put him in the candidate protection program. 😐

Ah, so when Vladimir Putin sent his little green men over the border, and eventually invaded altogether, it was all to protect those with Russian heritage? Speaking of Nazis: Oh yeah, such restraint:

He's not wrong, but it's a bit of a strawman, isn't it? Who's blaming Trump for the last 30 years of economic fecklessness in Canada? Even the original NAFTA was a failure in many regards, with the promise from the US for a certain percentage of research funding to be based in Canada only being honored for a few years before it was abandoned with no challenge from our governments.

So if they're eastern provinces of Ukraine, they were attacking themselves? Yeah, the Russian army has really overperformed, hasn't it!? 🤡

Kudos to you for actually citing something specific and directly for a change, even if it's not great. At least it's real, and it's true for the USA, just not Canada: While this is the correct conclusion when there are only two possible survey responses, it is not correct when there are more than two possible responses, which is in fact virtually always the case. How much difference this makes depends on how many responses are outside the two categories of interest. -Charles H. Franklin University of Wisconsin, Madison October 27, 2002 (Revised, February 9, 2007) (It's off a PDF that I don't know how to hyperlink) For a 5.4% lead to be a a "statistical tie", you'd need the Liberal vote to be overestimated by at least half that, and for PP to be the 100% beneficiary of it (which is already unlikely). You also need the NDP/Green/Bloc numbers to be (at minimum) almost dead-on. As before, you're assuming all of the variability leans heavily in the Conservatives' favor, and that the Bloc/NDP/Greens somehow don't exist. TLDR: Sorry kiddo/muffin , nice try, good effort, but you're still wrong.

By repeating Russian propaganda, like Ukraine started the war.... Let me guess though, it's not a big deal because he didn't say anything like that in the last two days? 🙄

Not when you have to double the margin of error to get yourself there! Let's see now... Difference between 42.6 - 37.1 = 5.5 Margin of Error = 2.7 QUICK! What's 5.5 - 2.7? 🤡🤡🤡