Majority of Americans, including many Republicans, say wait for election to replace Ginsburg - Reuters poll

[rebekkahr]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

At least something over half of the 837 people they asked do.

 

So do you think they asked the same people and they changed their minds or do you think they asked different people? 

You say you understand polls and yet you claim that there would be significantly different results if a different set of people were asked? In other words, polls just have random results? No methodology there? I truly don't understand how you could have studied statistics and arrived at the conclusion you did.

Edited September 28, 2020 by rebekkahr

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

Right. Because pollsters don't care about their reputation? 

Anyway, the original point raised by someone was that there were more democrats polled than republicans.

 

No, because pollsters do care about their reputations. 

 

Yes, something over 20% more, but that's not significant, yes?

[rebekkahr]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No, because pollsters do care about their reputations. 

 

Yes, something over 20% more, but that's not significant, yes?

Did it occur to you that the reason for that might be that there are more registered democrats than republicans? Also, since you studied statistics, you should know that sub groups are routinely over or under weighted to account for differences from the general population.

Edit: 31% of the American electorate is registered democratic and 25 percent Republican.

Edited September 28, 2020 by rebekkahr

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

You say you understand polls and yet you claim that there would be significantly different results if a different set of people were asked? In other words, polls just have random results? No methodology there? I truly don't understand how you could have studied statistics and arrived at the conclusion you did.

I have no idea what the methodology used was, do you? You seem to have faith in the poll that supports your position but discount the one that goes against it, why? I have no faith in either poll.

 

Who is funding the polls? Does that matter? 

 

And yes, I know with absolute certainty a poll can be designed to provide whatever outcome is desired. Do you not believe that? 

[Mansell]

On 9/21/2020 at 10:24 AM, Dart12 said:

Ginsbert herself said "put in a new judge immediately.  The president is still the president until he is not and it is his duty.  It is extremely difficult to operate with only 8 judges."

This is not verbatim, but what she said when the last judge died with a president less than a year to an election.

(btw, it will still be Trump next year anyways).

If you believe that it’s probably because the bleach is having it’s effect on your brain.

[rebekkahr]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I have no idea what the methodology used was, do you? You seem to have faith in the poll that supports your position but discount the one that goes against it, why? I have no faith in either poll.

 

Who is funding the polls? Does that matter? 

 

And yes, I know with absolute certainty a poll can be designed to provide whatever outcome is desired. Do you not believe that? 

On the one hand you are doubtful that if a poll was performed on a different selection of people would the results be similar. On the other, you claim that a poll can be designed to provide whatever outcome is desired. Make up your mind.

And what proof do you have that I have faith only in a poll that supports my position? What I do have faith in is polls that provide consistently accurate results. In the midterms for example, fivethirtyeight.com did a metapoll which used the data from virtually all polls and weighted them by reliability. Fivethirtyeight called the midterms exactly right. Quite an astonishing coincidence.

Edited September 28, 2020 by rebekkahr

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

Did it occur to you that the reason for that might be that there are more registered democrats than republicans? Also, since you studied statistics, you should know that sub groups are routinely over or under weighted to account for differences from the general population.

Edit: 31% of the American electorate is registered democratic and 25 percent Republican.

 

It occurred to me that the reason may have been any number of things. 

 

So again, have you seen the data and methodology use in the polls, and why do you trust one and not the other? 

 

Do you know who funded the studies? 

[rebekkahr]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

It occurred to me that the reason may have been any number of things. 

 

So again, have you seen the data and methodology use in the polls, and why do you trust one and not the other? 

 

Do you know who funded the studies? 

I actually trust in the statisticians at fivethirtyeight who offer a detailed explanation of their methodology on how they rate pollsters. Basically, they compare their predictions to actual outcomes. You know, reality. Most pollsters do have a history.

Edited September 28, 2020 by rebekkahr

[RJRS1301]

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

At least something over half of the 837 people they asked do.

 

So do you think they asked the same people and they changed their minds or do you think they asked different people? 

It is an irrelevant number really polled to begin with.

[Andy from Kent]

On 9/21/2020 at 1:00 PM, canuckamuck said:

Trumps got 4 years to replace her anyway. The Dems are a dystopian dark humor comedy at the moment.

 

 

I agree with you,  Muck. 

 

I think Obama would be an excellent choice for  a Supreme Court nomination once Joe Biden takes office as the 46th President of the USA..

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, rebekkahr said:

On the one hand you are doubtful that if a poll was performed on a different selection of people would the results be similar. On the other, you claim that a poll can be designed to provide whatever outcome is desired. Make up your mind.

And what proof do you have that I have faith in a poll that supports my position. What I do have faith in is polls that provide consistently accurate results. In the midterms for example, fivethirtyeight.com did a metapoll which used the data from virtually all polls and weighted them by reliability. Fivethirtyeight called the midterms exactly right. Quite an astonishing coincidence.

 

I never claimed to be doubtful that if were performed on a different selection of people the results would be similar. If a study is well designed, repeating the study using the same methodology, the results should be similar. If you have a well designed study and want a different result, you would have to adjust the methodology.

 

If the study is not well designed the results may or may not be similar. 

 

Surely you know all this, yes? 

 

I'm sorry, I thought you had faith the the one poll and had no faith in the other, and that the one you have faith in supported your position. If I was wrong in my assumptions, I apologize. That said, I did qualify it by sayin you seem to....

 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

It is an irrelevant number really polled to begin with.

 

What does this mean, that the number of people polled does not matter? 

[rebekkahr]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I never claimed to be doubtful that if were performed on a different selection of people the results would be similar. If a study is well designed, repeating the study using the same methodology, the results should be similar. If you have a well designed study and want a different result, you would have to adjust the methodology.

 

If the study is not well designed the results may or may not be similar. 

 

Surely you know all this, yes? 

 

I'm sorry, I thought you had faith the the one poll and had no faith in the other, and that the one you have faith in supported your position. If I was wrong in my assumptions, I apologize. That said, I did qualify it by sayin you seem to....

Perhaps, you and I have a differing ideas of what "well-designed" means. I believe a study is well designed if it reasonably approximates reality with a 3.5 percent margin of error 19 out of 20 times.

[Gandtee]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You guys crack me up. If you don't know just say you don't know. You claim I don't understand, yet when I ask what it is I don't understand you can't answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why we want to get into such an entrenched, polarised .debate. It's akin to whistling into the wind.????

[rebekkahr]

4 minutes ago, Gandtee said:

I don't understand why we want to get into such an entrenched, polarised .debate. It's akin to whistling into the wind.????

Because the future of the world depends on us soldiers of light subduing the opposing dark forces present in this forum.

[Gandtee]

1 hour ago, rebekkahr said:

Because the future of the world depends on us soldiers of light subduing the opposing dark forces present in this forum.

'May the peace be with you.'????

Edited September 28, 2020 by Gandtee
Additional words.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, rebekkahr said:

Perhaps, you and I have a differing ideas of what "well-designed" means. I believe a study is well designed if it reasonably approximates reality with a 3.5 percent margin of error 19 out of 20 times.

So do you have an example of some such study?

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Gandtee said:

I don't understand why we want to get into such an entrenched, polarised .debate. It's akin to whistling into the wind.????

 

uhhh, it's a discussion board, yes? 

[onthedarkside]

A series of bickering posts has been removed.

 

[geriatrickid]

15 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Have her religious beliefs been questioned in her previous and current roles? Have her beliefs a been cause for appeals in her judgements?
 

She has only been on the bench since 2017. It is a very short time prior to  being promoted. However,  even in that short period of time she does have a history of decisions that should give rise to concern. One case that stands out for me is her belief that an accused does not necessarily have to be given access to legal counsel.In this case, Barrett dissented when the appeals court  overturned a decision, saying that the accused had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. She rejected the application of a previous SCOTUS ’critical stage’ precedent. No one else has ever  questioned the SCOTUS  precedent. She has a few more gems to date.

 

No one comes out and questions a nominee's religious beliefs, because it is illegal to do so. However, they can be asked if such beliefs would influence their decisions. She replied that no they would not.

 

 

[rebekkahr]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So do you have an example of some such study?

That's what expert independent statisticians are for. Like fivethirtyeight.com. Go to this page and look at the ratings of various pollsters. Fox actually gets an A-

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

 

[RJRS1301]

7 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

She has only been on the bench since 2017. It is a very short time prior to  being promoted. However,  even in that short period of time she does have a history of decisions that should give rise to concern. One case that stands out for me is her belief that an accused does not necessarily have to be given access to legal counsel.In this case, Barrett dissented when the appeals court  overturned a decision, saying that the accused had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. She rejected the application of a previous SCOTUS ’critical stage’ precedent. No one else has ever  questioned the SCOTUS  precedent. She has a few more gems to date.

 

No one comes out and questions a nominee's religious beliefs, because it is illegal to do so. However, they can be asked if such beliefs would influence their decisions. She replied that no they would not.

 

 

Perhaps during her examination by the Senate, these influences on her decisions will be examined and interrogated by both sides.

 

[Morch]

23 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You can't address the point made, that's all.

 

What's wrong with pointing out the size and make-up of a poll's sample set? 

 

You have no point. You're just raising bogus 'issues', 'concerns' and trying to sneak in factually incorrect, misleading bits into the conversation. If you claim to understand statistics, polling and the methodologies involved, there's no way you couldn't 'address' your own bogus question. This is a discussion forum, not an actual Introduction to Statistics 101 class. That you constantly try to derail topics and engage in petty or meaningless arguments over nonsense is not a discussion, just plain trolling.

[Yellowtail]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You have no point. You're just raising bogus 'issues', 'concerns' and trying to sneak in factually incorrect, misleading bits into the conversation. If you claim to understand statistics, polling and the methodologies involved, there's no way you couldn't 'address' your own bogus question. This is a discussion forum, not an actual Introduction to Statistics 101 class. That you constantly try to derail topics and engage in petty or meaningless arguments over nonsense is not a discussion, just plain trolling.

That's what I thought, thanks.

 

 

[Pattaya Spotter]

I'll forgive the American people this one as most are not Constitutional experts...but the President and Senate leader McConnell will do what the Constitution requires...nominate a justice and advise on it.

[coolhand555]

3 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I'll forgive the American people this one as most are not Constitutional experts...but the President and Senate leader McConnell will do what the Constitution requires...nominate a justice and advise on it.

The Constitution does not require it. It allows for it but it's not mandatory.

[Credo]

3 hours ago, coolhand555 said:

The Constitution does not require it. It allows for it but it's not mandatory.

Obviously not.  It certainly didn't require it when Obama made his nomination.

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I'll forgive the American people this one as most are not Constitutional experts...but the President and Senate leader McConnell will do what the Constitution requires...nominate a justice and advise on it.

The closest to a Presidential election a Supreme Court Justice has ever been confirmed is George Siras Jr. on July 26, 1892.  Since then no Justice has been confirmed less than nine months before a Presidential election.

 

Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election is unprecedented, and a really bad idea. 

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

The closest to a Presidential election a Supreme Court Justice has ever been confirmed is George Siras Jr. on July 26, 1892.  Since then no Justice has been confirmed less than nine months before a Presidential election.

 

Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election is unprecedented, and a really bad idea. 

Only if you don't like the nominee.

 

So not having done something recently is a good reason not to? If that's the best you can do it seems pretty weak. 

 

No real reason they shouldn't move ahead with it except that the left doesn't like her, and as far as I'm concerned that seems like a good reason to move ahead. 

[Gandtee]

On 9/28/2020 at 8:00 PM, onthedarkside said:

A series of bickering posts has been removed.

 

After sitting through the Presidential debate I now know where the bickering stemmed from. Perhaps the next one, if there is a next one could be billed as the undercard on Pacquiao v Mcgregor fight. A pathetic spectacle and embarrassing for the American voters.