Good News for Somerset Dems, Linda Stender

should this make you feel any better? (0.00 / 0)

nice post.  but after running for Congress for nearly 4 years and spending over $2 million, it must bother you that the race is essentially tied.  

---

by: maxidoodler @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:12:48 AM UTC

? (0.00 / 0)

Stender was up 3  a month ago

http://www.politickernj.com/wa...

Wall St, might have added 3 more to that.


Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:24:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

did you even read the headline to your own link? (0.00 / 0)

"Stender pollster says 7th district race is a statistical dead heat for Congress, President"

you might want to look up term "dead heat"

---

by: maxidoodler @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:32:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, you might ... (0.00 / 0)

want to learn more about how polls work, and spread the word to Wally Edge.  Just because Wally doesn't understand polls doesn't mean that you should repeat the mistakes he writes.

A three point lead in a poll, even if it is within the margin of error, is still a three point lead.  

Since the article didn't say, let's assume the margin of error is 3 points.  That means that either candidate's results is within a range of three points from what the poll says is statistically accurate.

That puts Stender in a range from 34.5 percent at worst to 37.5 percent at best in the poll.

It puts Lance in a range from 31.5 percent to 34.5 percent.

So the absolute worst case scenario for Stender is that she is tied for a seat in a district that leans Republican, and the best case scenario is that she is up six points.

The reason they put the poll at three percent lead is because that is the most likely statistical result of the poll, and so it should be reported as a three point lead within the margin of error, not as a "dead heat".

The article focused only on the worst case scenario of the poll, but totally ignored the best case scenario.  That's pretty normal for media outlets that want to gin up controversy or excitement over a race, but the problem with that is -- as you've proven -- sometimes people who don't actually understand polling or statistics are taken in and then repeat the mistake.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

tied in her own poll... (0.00 / 0)

....is bad news.  just admit she's underperforming and move on. you gotta be disappointed.

---

by: maxidoodler @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:23:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now we are just haggling over price (0.00 / 0)

You just demonstrated what you are, and now we are just haggling.

If you look above and bother to try to think you'll see that she's not tied in her own poll, but is three points in the lead.

There is only one situation where she is tied in the poll, and that is the absolute worst case scenario.  The other 99% of the possibilities have Stender in the lead.

And you know that Lance has done polling -- the fact that he has not released any indicates that they are not something he wants out in public.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:45:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll go with the 95% confidence rate (0.00 / 0)

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 03:32:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

The race is close, but we always knew the race was going to be close.  The district is primarily Hunterdon and Somerset counties and includes some of the most Republican areas of Union County.  

This is a district that should go to the Republicans, so a close race is actually a good showing for the Democrats.

As for the 4 years an $2 million, that doesn't bother me.  Ferguson spent that much after running for six years and couldn't break 50% last time.

Plus, Stender has only been running for 2.5 years, not four.  But why bring facts into it.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh, running for just 2.5 years? (0.00 / 0)

in that case, she's doing great.  Stender's right where she wants to be.

it's one thing to be partisan -- that's OK.  it's quite another to be blindly partisan.

---

by: maxidoodler @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess you would know ... (0.00 / 0)

I was not discussing the relative merits of her position based on her length of campaign, but on your inability to stick to the facts to make you point.

It's interesting that you have no problem with being factually incorrect in an effort to exaggerate facts to make your point, yet call me blindly partisan

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 22:10:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]