Moonbox
-
Posts
9,559 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Oh look, no link yet again
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
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:You've calculated the outcome based on two polls with a 95 percent accuracy MOE. The correct number in this case would be 97.5.
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.
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:SO you calculated the z score wrong if that's the formula you used.
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? 🤣
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
But hey, lets settle it : seeing as you feel you know the calculations, what ARE the proper calculations for the margin of error in that specific case? Hmmmm?
Don't know? Cant' figure it out? Havne't got a clue about what you're talking about?
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!)
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, CdnFox said:
And I'm sorry but your ABC news article does not beat pew research.
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?
19 hours ago, CdnFox said:I appreciate how desperate you are to try and salvage your ego.
I appreciate how reliably you project your fragility onto others - like clockwork! 😆👌
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, blackbird said:
Trump did his practiced rant just for the benefit of Carney. Of course he knows there are hoards of undecided voters in Canada and especially Quebec that will be scared at the slightest provocation from the Orange man and will vote Liberal. He knows Carney Liberals are an easier mark to deal with than the Conservatives.
This, folks, is what we call delusional coping.
Behold it in all its glory.
-
1
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
I posted proof. I posted literally the definition and that's a definition that appears again and again and again and again if you do a search of your own
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
No, that's not how it works. Sigh. I posted a detailed explanation of this.
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.
4 hours ago, CdnFox said:Not really relevant is it.
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?
4 hours ago, CdnFox said:The number given to either party is the center of a range of likely probabilities based on the data. It is just as likely that the actual number is in the upper portion of that range, or the lower.
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...🙄
-
1 hour ago, User said:
So… mean words is your big “betrayal?”
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!
1 hour ago, User said:Here we are a month later now and why hasn’t Canada done more to win this war for Ukraine?
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. 🤡
-
22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
But as Balsille pointed out even when the research is done here, we give away the IP anyways or allow it to be privately sold for peanuts For example Tesla battery technology was developed at Dalhousie U with a large taxpayer funded endowment but we allowed tesla who also contributed funds to walk away with the IP
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.
-
25 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
Given that this geezer golf ad does not feature Poilievre, the Tories’ own polling must show that older men aren’t as keen on them or the leader as they usually are.
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. 😐
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
1. Yes there were. Those people were content as Ukrainians. All they wanted was to retain their Russian heritage.
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:
4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:2. They have shown surprising restraint.
Oh yeah, such restraint:
-
22 hours ago, BeaverFever said:
But, according to Balsillie, none of this can be blamed on Trump. He thinks that over the last thirty years we’ve clung to an outdated economic model and have allowed our politics to be captured by corporate interests.
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.
-
4
-
-
29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
Did Comic-Boy have his private NAZIs attack the eastern provinces? Why yes he did. And ya know what Moonbat?
So if they're eastern provinces of Ukraine, they were attacking themselves?
31 minutes ago, Nationalist said:They got exactly what they begged for. A good b1tch slappin'.
Yeah, the Russian army has really overperformed, hasn't it!? 🤡
-
15 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Here you go
This explains clearly why you effed up. You go the math wrong
Understanding the margin of error in election polls
It is not enough for one candidate to be ahead by more than the margin of error that is reported for individual candidates (i.e., ahead by more than 3 points, in our example). To determine whether or not the race is too close to call, we need to calculate a new margin of error for the difference between the two candidates’ levels of support. The size of this margin is generally about twice that of the margin for an individual candidate.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 4/21/2025 at 11:11 AM, User said:
The funds are still flowing and Trump is working towards peace.
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? 🙄
-
30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Sure it is. Their statistically tied.
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?
🤡🤡🤡
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Everything I said is accurate
Except for the part about all of the polls being tied, which is categorically not true. 🤡🤡🤡
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Oh my god, that is what literally every poster talks about. Yes they are in a statistical tie if they were within the margin. Go look it up. That is the most commonly used phrase out there when it comes to polling.
When you're within the margin of error one way, you can call that a statistical tie. Mainstreet definitely, and maybe EKOS could say that.
These predictions are made on distributions, however, so the further from the polled number, the less likely they predict it will be. For most of the other polls to be "ties", you need the unlikely scenario that their margins of error are both fully realized, and that they both go in the direction required for the Conservatives. That's wishful thinking.
It's not impossible, and momentum could swing, but if the election were held today they're still predicting a Liberal majority, and by 1 point higher than they did yesterday.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
FFS it's ONE PAGE AGO.
Those aren't ties, donkey.
Assigning the negative margin or error to the Liberals and the positive to the Conservatives is wishful thinking, not actual logic.
If done in reverse, then the Conservatives are 10 points behind. Nobody is starting a thread about that though, because they're not completely retarded.
-
1 minute ago, CdnFox said:
I've literally posted four. If you need more than that go look it up yourself.
Where's that? Not here. Is this going to be another example of you refusing to provide any cites or evidence, while insisting you totally already did?
Michael already posted the proof on how wrong you were, so at this point it's just a matter of how much energy you'll spend petulantly ranting at us over how retarded you made yourself look...again. 🤡
-
Just now, CdnFox said:
Sure kiddo
You didn't have the balls to ask me directly about something and I'm the one that's looking stupid
I just did dumdum. Show us where all of the polls say it's a tie, or we can safely conclude that you've clowned yourself...again.
As for the rest, make up your mind over which fantasy you're going to subscribe to. Am I the coward too afraid to engage you, or am I the sad puppy following you and engaging you everywhere? 🫠
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
LOL what, you were too afraid to ask me directly? ROFLMAO! I guess it makes sense seeing as you always wind up looking stupid
You're the one looking stupid here, muppet.
Why bother asking you directly? You so regularly prove yourself full of shit that it felt safe to assume this was another example of you clowning yourself. Feel free to prove otherwise. 🙄
-
1
-
-
Just now, eyeball said:
The OP's toaster.
It's probably tuned to Rebel News.
beat you to it, sucka.
-
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:
I'm not sure who is saying it, not appearing in my feed but most of us who quote the "polls" seem to be circumspect when looking at it. And that's how it should be.
Just our resident genius, it seems. He probably got it from the fine "journalists" at Rebel News. 🫠
-
6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Look at that... why you are right 😮
https://338canada.com/polls.htm
Didn't realize that at all. They ARE rated A- which is a high rating.Yeah I think they are fine. They're supposedly the 4th-5th most reliable in Canada, which sounds bad but is actually pretty good.
I'm just confused by where we get "All the Polls say it's a TIE" when it appears to only be a single pollster out of many. 😑
Federal Canada post April 2024: Do we get along? Clarity Act? Crimea?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
The Ottawa Senators were founded in 1992.
Avril Lavigne was married to Chad Kroeger
====
We Canadians get along. 🫠