Yeah, dumb it down for all of us, because I don't want to be spreading lies. I work with psychological studies, and sampling in that field doesn't work at all the way you just said. These two sets of numbers are incompatible.
Yeah, dumb it down for all of us, because I don't want to be spreading lies. I work with psychological studies, and sampling in that field doesn't work at all the way you just said. These two sets of numbers are incompatible.
I am a statistician with a background in polling. You’re failing to account for the specific way Texas handles primary and general elections. But do go on about your psychological expertise. The voter data is derived from L2 data sources, a nonpartisan provider. This is explained at
Independentvoterproject.org
It doesn't explain how the modeling analytics are performed, actually. We are unable to scrutinize the method. Also, voting in a primary isn't evidence of party affiliation. Americans often try to wreck outcomes by voting in primaries for parties they don't support. I want to support this btw.
Are you trying to say a polling expert wouldn’t look at “registration” numbers completely out of whack with 30+ years of primary and general results, with no explanation of methodology and just instantly believe them? Preposterous! There was a meme!
There's another meme that applies here: "Trust me, bro." I'm just supposed to believe any organization calling itself non-partisan and using an opaque method with results that contradict other, more direct data sets? Show us the work. Again, I WANT this to be true.
Yes, what was the method? Where do the numbers come from? The only explanation given is that they seem to have made assumptions based on race. But what were the original numbers? How were these assumptions made? I'd really like to make the argument in question, but I need more proof.
So you're not going to tell us? I have to go through an entire organization's website to try to understand what you're saying? We're asking you to explain, not to be arrogant. But do you.