RedC/Paddy Power Poll 12/01/12- Post Budget

Sir Oxman

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0112/politics1.html

FG 33% +1
FF 17% -1
Lab 16% +1
SF 14% -1
Oth 20% N/C

No movement at all worth considering.
Which is good news for the govt parties.

It appears to reflect that any anger over the budget was not felt widely enough across the country to damage the govt.

Budget 2013 may change that though as the big spending depts will eventually get it in the neck.

The first opinion poll of 2012 shows a marginal improvement in support for the Government parties since the Budget.
However, the Red C poll for Paddy Power indicates that 15% of voters say they will not pay the Household Charge.
The poll was carried out Monday and yesterday and is the first Red C poll since the weekend before the Budget in December.
In terms of party support, it shows very little movement, with Fine Gael and Labour up one point to 33% and 16% respectively.
Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin drop a point to 17% and 14 %, while Independents and others are unchanged at 20%.
More interesting are the numbers on the Household Charge, as 24% do not know if they are liable for the charge, while 19% say they do not have to pay it.
The poll shows that 42% know they are due to pay it and say they will.
However, 15% say they know they are liable for the charge, but they are not going to pay it.

hallelujajordan

gambiaman wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0112/politics1.html

FG 33% +1
FF 17% -1
Lab 16% +1
SF 14% -1
Oth 20% N/C

No movement at all worth considering.
Which is good news for the govt parties.

It appears to reflect that any anger over the budget was not felt widely enough across the country to damage the govt.

Budget 2013 may change that though as the big spending depts will eventually get it in the neck.

Nothing in the party movements that is beyond the margin of error . . non-story really. In any case, I think the budget damage was done before Noonan/Howlin stood up in the Dail and is reflected in those opinion polls immediately before the budget. .

The household charge number is interesting. . Only 15% say they won't pay it. . Hopefully this will quell the nonsense being spouted by the anti-household charge lobby who would have you believe that the vast majority of people will not pay !

ardmacha

Only 15% say they won't pay it. . Hopefully this will quell the nonsense being spouted by the anti-household charge lobby who would have you believe that the vast majority of people will not pay !

15% evade car tax or do not pay the their TV licence. This number is not some big campaign. Most people recognise that there is fiscal gap that has to be filled.

Mr.Micro

ardmacha wrote: »

15% evade car tax or do not pay the their TV licence. This number is not some big campaign. Most people recognise that there is fiscal gap that has to be filled.

I agree, most people are responsible citizens and will pay. The 15% will be exercising their rights in a democracy, but in reality breaking the law.

ILikeBananas

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Nothing in the party movements that is beyond the margin of error . . non-story really.

Out of curiosity, did you stop posting as much during 2011 because of the annihilation of FF in the general election? I mean it's probably just a coincidence but it ties in with the Sunday Independent and their lack of reporting on FF during the past year.
It just seems like a lot of FF supporters have been waiting in the long grass and are going to emerge from here on in given that the government is coming up to it's anniversary and it can now be seen as acceptable to start blaming them for everything.

Mr.Micro

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Out of curiosity, did you stop posting as much during 2011 because of the annihilation of FF in the general election? I mean it's probably just a coincidence but it ties in with the Sunday Independent and their lack of reporting on FF during the past year.
It just seems like a lot of FF supporters have been waiting in the long grass and are going to emerge from here on in given that the government is coming up to it's anniversary and it can now be seen as acceptable to start blaming them for everything.

Not sure I agree there, as the problems created by FF have a long term knock on effect, and most people IMO will see that. One thinks how FF would be handling this crisis if still in power,.......denial and lies? We would have defaulted by now.

hallelujajordan

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Out of curiosity, did you stop posting as much during 2011 because of the annihilation of FF in the general election? I mean it's probably just a coincidence but it ties in with the Sunday Independent and their lack of reporting on FF during the past year.
It just seems like a lot of FF supporters have been waiting in the long grass and are going to emerge from here on in given that the government is coming up to it's anniversary and it can now be seen as acceptable to start blaming them for everything.

Another way to look at it is that they have been absorbing the feedback from the electorate and reflecting inwardly on the need to change and to reinvent . .

But that has nothing to do with my posting history . . I did spend over 160 days travelling with work last year, including a 3 month relocation in the US . . that probably had a greater impact

hallelujajordan

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not sure I agree there, as the problems created by FF have a long term knock on effect, and most people IMO will see that. One thinks how FF would be handling this crisis if still in power,.......denial and lies? We would have defaulted by now.

Given that fundamentally the government have simply adopted the Brian Lenihan economic policy position, it's hard to see how you can reach that conclusion

Mr.Micro

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Given that fundamentally the government have simply adopted the Brian Lenihan economic policy position, it's hard to see how you can reach that conclusion

Its a matter of application, something FF not good at, as the Party comes first before all else. Going on the FF financial track record, the prognosis woud not be good. It one thing having a plan and the bailout was forced on this Government as it was agreed before the election, its another to make it work.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Nothing in the party movements that is beyond the margin of error . . non-story really.

I think it is a great news story that FF popularity is slipping.

Do you think it is because Martin is a terrible leader or just because of his amateur dramatics in the dail that FF vote is going down the drain again ?

hallelujajordan

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its a matter of application, something FF not good at, as the Party comes first before all else. Going on the FF financial track record, the prognosis woud not be good. It one thing having a plan and the bailout was forced on this Government as it was agreed before the election, its another to make it work.

Interested to hear what you think this administration is doing differently to the previous administration that is "making it work" ?

raymon wrote: »

I think it is a great news story that FF popularity is slipping.

Do you think it is because Martin is a terrible leader or just because of his amateur dramatics in the dail that FF vote is going down the drain again ?

If you think the FF vote is going "down the drain" then you don't understand opinion polls .. -1 is within the margin of error for such polls . . i.e. this indicates no statistically significant change from the polls carried out immediately before the budget. .

Interesting that you have ignored the only real significant finding in this poll . . i.e. that the anti-household charge lobby have far less support than they claim.

Sir Oxman

The household charge figures are a bit misleading - of those that are liable to pay, it's 26% that say they won't pay.

http://pix.ie/davidcochrane/2701630

Sir Oxman

FF support:

Dublin 7%
Leinster 19%
Munster 20%
Conn/Ulster 21%

Well done Dublin ;-)

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If you think the FF vote is going "down the drain" then you don't understand opinion polls .. -1 is within the margin of error for such polls . . i.e. this indicates no statistically significant change from the polls carried out immediately before the budget. . .

No , I understand opinion polls alright. A simple concept.

With margin of error , FF could be down -2

I think the public are tired of the whimpering and whining from FF. What a weak opposition.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

No , I understand opinion polls alright. A simple concept.

With margin of error , FF could be down -2

I think the public are tired of the whimpering and whining from FF. What a weak opposition.

No, actually it means they could be down 4 or up 2 !! In a poll with a sample size of 1000 a 1% movement is pretty meaningless.

Who's whining ?

Mr.Micro

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Interested to hear what you think this administration is doing differently to the previous administration that is "making it work" ?

Not pretending that all is fine, and informing people that we are in for a tough time, and doing what is necessary rather than pandering to cronies or certain voters. In a word, honesty, not a word associated much with FF.

hallelujajordan

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not pretending that all is fine, and informing people that we are in for a tough time, and doing what is necessary rather than pandering to cronies or certain voters. In a word, honesty, not a word associated much with FF.

Honesty ? ? ?

"We will burn the bondholders"

"We will maintain services at Roscommon General Hospital"

"We will create 80,000 jobs in the next year"

"Labours way or Frankfurts way"

You must be kidding me ? ?

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No, actually it means they could be down 4 or up 2 !! In a poll with a sample size of 1000 a 1% movement is pretty meaningless.

Who's whining ?

Unlikely that the result would be off by +/-3% . In these polls more than likely +/- 1%

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

Unlikely that the result would be off by +/-3% . In these polls more than likely +/- 1%

Actually, the margin of error in a 1000 person poll is +/-3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Actually, the margin of error in a 1000 person poll is +/-3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

I wasn't aware the sampling size was 1000 for this poll .

However the error is more likely to be 1% than 3% as I correctly stated

Mr.Micro

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Honesty ? ? ?

"We will burn the bondholders"

"We will maintain services at Roscommon General Hospital"

"We will create 80,000 jobs in the next year"

"Labours way or Frankfurts way"

You must be kidding me ? ?

The coalition has to guts to confront the issues when the facts became clear. It will take years, or forever to clear up the mess left by FF. Not everyone is going to be happy, but there you have it. FF had 11 years and look what we got......disaster. Come back after the current coalition is up for election again, then we can talk.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

I wasn't aware the sampling size was 1000 for this poll .

However the error is more likely to be 1% than 3% as I correctly stated

. . I gave you a link that details why the margin of error in a 1000 person poll is +/- 3% . . If you read it you will see that in order to reduce the margin of error to 1% you would need to increase your sample size to 10,000 . .

Einhard

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Honesty ? ? ?

"We will burn the bondholders"

"We will maintain services at Roscommon General Hospital"

"We will create 80,000 jobs in the next year"

"Labours way or Frankfurts way"

You must be kidding me ? ?

Neither of the parties mentioned anything about rejecting the bailout in their manifestos, so it's a tad disingenuous to claim that that's what they promised. Individual candidates made certain statements that were mendacious, or naive if you want to put a spin on it, but one can't condemn a government for not implementing policies which only existed in the doundbites of a tiny minority of candidates, and which didn't have a place in the manifestos.

hallelujajordan

Einhard wrote: »

Neither of the parties mentioned anything about rejecting the bailout in their manifestos, so it's a tad disingenuous to claim that that's what they promised. Individual candidates made certain statements that were mendacious, or naive if you want to put a spin on it, but one can't condemn a government for not implementing policies which only existed in the doundbites of a tiny minority of candidates, and which didn't have a place in the manifestos.

I never said that they claimed they would reject the bailout. . . I said that they claimed they would make bondholders take their losses . .

Do you want some more lies . .

They promised not to cut child benefit

What about the student fees contract that R. Quinn signed? ?

Mr.Micro wrote:

The coalition has to guts to confront the issues when the facts became clear. It will take years, or forever to clear up the mess left by FF. Not everyone is going to be happy, but there you have it. FF had 11 years and look what we got......disaster. Come back after the current coalition is up for election again, then we can talk.

So you claimed they had done something different to the previous government, when I asked you what, you claimed that they had been more honest. When I debunked your 'honesty' assessment you revert back to your claim that they have the guts to 'confront the issues' . . .

So I ask you again . . what have this government done that has been fundamentally different to the policy position laid down by the previous administration. . ?

Mr.Micro

hallelujajordan wrote: »

So you claimed they had done something different to the previous government, when I asked you what, you claimed that they had been more honest. When I debunked your 'honesty' assessment you revert back to your claim that they have the guts to 'confront the issues' . . .

So I ask you again . . what have this government done that has been fundamentally different to the policy position laid down by the previous administration. . ?

You did not debunk anything. Honesty is the key, not pretence and lies, so the public are not deluded about the situation. Perhaps a better word is openness. What this coalition is doing differently, is tackling the situation as best as possible, and trying to do what is best for the nation and regain our credibility and our sovereignty. The previous lot just pretended and lied, could not even admit the IMF/EU were here. The reality is, they probably did not even know, they were so incompetent. Then its not every century that a party can claim to have ruined a country and lose it its sovereignty.

Sierra Oscar

Interesting poll - people no doubt have little faith in the opposition. That is to be expected for FF, the party will be waiting for a long time before its stigma of being the IMF party is reduced.

However it is a poor showing for SF - who are clearly not having as much of an impact upon voters as they would have liked to have had by now. When they ran McGuinness they did so thinking that it would push the party ahead of FF and slowly defeat FF in the long run. That is not occurring and SF seem to be stuck in a rut. SF strategists know that they have to make the positive impact upon voters early on in the lifetime of this Dáil, before peoples attitudes towards FF soften.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

. . I gave you a link that details why the margin of error in a 1000 person poll is +/- 3% . . If you read it you will see that in order to reduce the margin of error to 1% you would need to increase your sample size to 10,000 . .

Let me know I'd you need help on probability / statistics. You seem to be missing my point. I can let you know of some good sites . It's not that difficult.

It is more probable that the any given percentage is off by 1% or 0% rather than it is off by 3%

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

Let me know I'd you need help on probability / statistics. You seem to be missing my point. I can let you know of some good sites . It's not that difficult.

It is more probable that the any given percentage is off by 1% or 0% rather than it is off by 3%

Yes, please . . point me to a site that shows that in an opinion poll with a population of 1000, even though the margin of error is +/- 3% there is a greater probability that the error is 1% than that the error is 3% . . .? ? ? ?

lugha

raymon wrote: »

With margin of error , FF could be down -2

This notion of 3% margin of error in opinion polls is widely misunderstood. It does not mean that the support reported for a party is within 3% of the true value, it means (loosely speaking) it probably is. But it could be out by 5% or 25%. It is not possible to bound the error on such polls, 3% is largely an arbitrary value.

raymon wrote: »

I think the public are tired of the whimpering and whining from FF. What a weak opposition.

In reality it would be truly astonishing if FF support was really going down since this time last year. It would in essence mean that there must be quite a few people who think FF who did awfully well in government but somehow managed to lower their standards in opposition.

hallelujajordan

lugha wrote: »

This notion of 3% margin of error in opinion polls is widely misunderstood. It does not mean that the support reported for a party is within 3% of the true value, it means (loosely speaking) it probably is. But it could be out by 5% or 25%. It is not possible to bound the error on such polls, 3% is largely an arbitrary value.

What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the answer given by a random sample of 1000 people is likely to be within +/- 3% of an alternate random sample. Of course, the alternate random sample could provide a 100% different answer but it is extremely unlikely .

There is no 'probability' that the error will be less than 3% despite Raymon's protestations

In reality it would be truly astonishing if FF support was really going down since this time last year. It would in essence mean that there must be quite a few people who think FF who did awfully well in government but somehow managed to lower their standards in opposition.

Quite . .

Liam Byrne

lugha wrote: »

raymon wrote: »

With margin of error , FF could be down -2

This notion of 3% margin of error in opinion polls is widely misunderstood. It does not mean that the support reported for a party is within 3% of the true value, it means (loosely speaking) it probably is. But it could be out by 5% or 25%. It is not possible to bound the error on such polls, 3% is largely an arbitrary value.

raymon wrote: »

I think the public are tired of the whimpering and whining from FF. What a weak opposition.

In reality it would be truly astonishing if FF support was really going down since this time last year. It would in essence mean that there must be quite a few people who think FF who did awfully well in government but somehow managed to lower their standards in opposition.

Well they have, to be honest, and there's a thread on here about them rewriting history that shows exactly why.

I would have no problem with an ethical, fair-minded, uncorrupt party taking FG & Labour to task for the lies that convinced me to give them a vote, but FF bull****ting about things that "shouldn't be done" - many of which they signed the contracts for - is sickening and has indeed lowered my opinion of them, especially given their promises of a new start - I didn't believe that promise, but I was hoping/fingers crossed.

The problem now is that we don't have a credible opposition to say "hang on a sec FG - if ye keep on this track ye're proving that ye are nearly as bad as FF"

And of course FF will spout stuff about FG doing the same as they did, ignoring the fact that both should do a million times better.

That's the core problem with politics - it's not about doing good or managing or improving the country - it's viewed as a game in which beating the opposition is the key and to hell with their employers (us).

gaffer91

raymon wrote: »

I think the public are tired of the whimpering and whining from FF. What a weak opposition.

FF are not really that weak in opposition. They are quite a small opposition and seem to be following a policy of keeping fairly quiet atm but they haven't really been too bad since they lost power (*awaits Liam Byrne to say something about Willie O Dea*). Haven't set the world alight either but to say that the "the public are tired of the whimpering and whining from FF" is just the usual BS you write.

Given your posting history I would take anything you have to say on FF with a rather large pinch of salt.

Liam Byrne

gaffer91 wrote: »

.....to say that the "the public are tired of the whimpering and whining from FF" is just the usual BS you write.

Given your posting history I would take anything you have to say on FF with a rather large pinch of salt.

But but but you can't possibly hold his history or what he's said or done in the past against him - that would be double-standards!

Sierra Oscar

It will be interesting to see an opinion poll in a months time, after the measures of the budget have taken effect. I think the government will suffer a minor fall, but still remain pretty steady for the foreseeable future.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No, actually it means they could be down 4 or up 2 !! In a poll with a sample size of 1000 a 1% movement is pretty meaningless.

Who's whining ?

Considering all movements are within the margin of error, it would be fair to say that support has remained steady for all parties - which is an achievement for the government considering it just passed a budget which is weighed down with austerity measures.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But but but you can't possibly hold his history or what he's said or done in the past against him - that would be double-standards!

I think he is merely pointing out that you may have an unhealthy obsession with Willie O'Dea, williewatch.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But but but you can't possibly hold his history or what he's said or done in the past against him - that would be double-standards!

I think he is merely pointing out that you may have an unhealthy obsession with Willie O'Dea, williewatch.

I think the irony went over your head. You FF heads don't want us to hold what FF did against them, but gaffer91 wants to hold what raymon said against him.

I didn't mention O'Dea

But now that you have, the same issue applies - crazy and sickening double-standards from FF apologists.

gaffer91

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think the irony went over your head. You FF heads don't want us to hold what FF did against them, but gaffer91 wants to hold what raymon said against him.

I didn't mention O'Dea

But now that you have, the same issue applies - crazy and sickening double-standards from FF apologists.

No its important to acknowledge what FF did in government, mistakes they made etc. I'm just, as Sierra Oscar pointed out, pointing out your unbelievable obsession with one particular incident. I've made the point several times that when it comes to judging MM at the next election you must look at everything he has done and will do as leader, not write him off because of one thing he did wrong, no matter how big a mistake you might think it was.

And are you denying the fact that raymon is so vitriolic in his criticisms of FF that it is difficult to view his opinions on anything new they do as being in any way objective?

Liam Byrne

And are you denying the fact that raymon is so vitriolic in his criticisms of FF that it is difficult to view his opinions on anything new they do as being in any way objective?

Maybe - given FF's monumental ****ups and MM's current rewriting of history re the contracts that HIS PARTY SIGNED - raymon is being perfectly objective and telling it like it is ?

You might have a point if there were proof that MM wasn't a devious manipulative opportunist prat, but there isn't.

dublinman1990

Can we not discuss other groups in detail in regards to the poll?

In that Red C poll, it noted that the independents (including the ULA/Technical Group) are unchanged at 20%. To have two opinion polls have been done and already they appeared to be unscathed.

Would I think that it is a good performance so far?

Well I don't know, However, I do realise opinion polls fluctuate each time when published or announced. The ULA & Tech group only serve a small minority of the population who are of course are not very well off. On the other hand some would say that they just don't care the economy will be damaged that will worsen their own than the likes of the previous administration.

They would maintain that their Dáil salaries being set at the average industrial wage is all well and good. Would they even care if their salaries were cut so unmanageable they could actually ask for an increase? And I know that will be another topic for another day.

Having said that, they haven't got much popularity under their belt as other administrations, not including FF BTW. At the last by-election, remember Joe Higgins of the SP saying they wanted a full recount for their new upcoming candidate, Ruth Coppinger. And what happened they got a huge boo from the crowd around them, thinking that the majority people would care about them.

Even the protests are overall very poor for most minor issues say in regards to public transport the SOBS (Save our buses campaign) are a complete and utter joke and only affects a small number of people. I'll remember a figure of two only two thousand people came to protest on Merrion Street.

Two protests I'd seen were held outside of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council offices on Marine Road in regards to selling of the DL Baths and the cuts in Loughlinstown Hospital.

The protest on the prevention of DL Baths going on sale as part Save Our Seafront campaign. I think it was held in early autumn, they only had a handful of around 10 people. Richard Boyd Barrett was leading the protest. A security guard was standing there very smugly outside the council entrance chamber. Boyd Barrett was saying rubbish to him really and being his own smug way.

A recent demonstration was held on Monday in response to the HSE cuts in Loughlinstown Hospital again DLRCC. The Chant of 10 people was put out as 'NO IFS, NO BUTS, NO HSE CUTS'. It was even more depressing to hear that it was held on my 22nd Birthday. They could not pick a worse day as the way they shouted could have made gone deaf. I was coming home by the DART BTW.

In regards to SF, I haven't met any party councillor or TD before. I also haven't seen their style of policy when talking to one of them.

Moving swiftly on, I am called one of these 'floating voters' because I don't see that party policy doesn't really suit me. I just tend to vote for people who are seen IMO the best candidate for any position, be it, councillor, TD or President. I'd say it's mostly the same message as of other people in this country.

raymon

gaffer91 wrote: »

No its important to acknowledge what FF did in government, mistakes they made etc. I'm just, as Sierra Oscar pointed out, pointing out your unbelievable obsession with one particular incident. I've made the point several times that when it comes to judging MM at the next election you must look at everything he has done and will do as leader, not write him off because of one thing he did wrong, no matter how big a mistake you might think it was.

And are you denying the fact that raymon is so vitriolic in his criticisms of FF that it is difficult to view his opinions on anything new they do as being in any way objective?

I don't consider my posts vitriolic at all . I consider my posts to be balanced , objective and fair.

I would just like FF to stop rewriting history and take the blame for once.

hallelujajordan

Mr.Micro wrote: »

You did not debunk anything. Honesty is the key, not pretence and lies, so the public are not deluded about the situation. Perhaps a better word is openness. What this coalition is doing differently, is tackling the situation as best as possible, and trying to do what is best for the nation and regain our credibility and our sovereignty. The previous lot just pretended and lied, could not even admit the IMF/EU were here. The reality is, they probably did not even know, they were so incompetent. Then its not every century that a party can claim to have ruined a country and lose it its sovereignty.

Yep . . here is a good example of your 'honest, open' government. . . Do you believe what they are telling us when they say the Anglo promissory notes are on the table for renegotiation ? And do you think that paying another €1BN at the end of the month to unguaranteed bondholders is living up to their pre-election promises

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, please . . point me to a site that shows that in an opinion poll with a population of 1000, even though the margin of error is +/- 3% there is a greater probability that the error is 1% than that the error is 3% . . .? ? ? ?

? ?

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

? ?

Halleluja

My point is that if FF had 17% in a 1000 person poll , it is likely that this will be what the whole population would think. It is less likely that FF would actually have 14% or 20% or any other percentage. However it is possible that 17% is not correct . Could be 20% but the probability is lower.

I would recommend http://probability.ca/jeff/writing/pollerror.html

Dammer

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Interesting poll - people no doubt have little faith in the opposition. That is to be expected for FF, the party will be waiting for a long time before its stigma of being the IMF party is reduced.

Stigma is a poor choice of word, try shame instead.

FF will always be associated with being on watch :rolleyes: when the IMF came to Ireland.

To some and perhaps a lot, that is unforgivable.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

Halleluja

My point is that if FF had 17% in a 1000 person poll , it is likely that this will be what the whole population would think. It is less likely that FF would actually have 14% or 20% or any other percentage. However it is possible that 17% is not correct . Could be 20% but the probability is lower.

I would recommend http://probability.ca/jeff/writing/pollerror.html

I understand your point, I am asking you to show me what basis it has in Statistics ? Sending me the first link you find in Google doesn't help, particularly when it contradicts your argument . .


From your own reference :
"The remarkable thing is, these facts are still true when polling four hundred residents! The mean is now different (and unknown), but the probabilities are still the SAME for how far OFF from the mean we will be. So, if you survey four hundred residents, then 68 times out of 100, the number claiming support for a particular political party will be within ten of the true mean; And, 95 times out of 100, it will be within 19 of the mean. And, 99 times out of 100, it will be within 25 of the mean."

An opinion poll like this has a margin of error. . they can claim a result within a particular accuracy. But there is no basis in statistics to say that the true result is more probable to be closer to your reported number than to either the upper or lower margin. . .

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I understand your point, I am asking you to show me what basis it has in Statistics ? Sending me the first link you find in Google doesn't help, particularly when it contradicts your argument . .


From your own reference :
"The remarkable thing is, these facts are still true when polling four hundred residents! The mean is now different (and unknown), but the probabilities are still the SAME for how far OFF from the mean we will be. So, if you survey four hundred residents, then 68 times out of 100, the number claiming support for a particular political party will be within ten of the true mean; And, 95 times out of 100, it will be within 19 of the mean. And, 99 times out of 100, it will be within 25 of the mean."

An opinion poll like this has a margin of error. . they can claim a result within a particular accuracy. But there is no basis in statistics to say that the true result is more probable to be closer to your reported number than to either the upper or lower margin. . .

You don't get the concept of a distribution and standard deviation, I give up .

Rather than clog up this thread I suggest you look again at the curve of the distribution.

Here is a question. Which is more probable , that the true FF support is

1 17% <

---

this is my choice
2 20%
3 20.01%
4 14%
5 13.9%

Then ask yourself , which is least probable

Again , this is really off topic

The real topic , which I think you want to deflect is the FF slide .

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

You don't get the concept of a distribution and standard deviation, I give up .

Rather than clog up this thread I suggest you look again at the curve of the distribution.

Here is a question. Which is more probable , that the true FF support is

1 17% <

---

this is my choice
2 20%
3 20.01%
4 14%
5 13.9%

Then ask yourself , which is least probable

Again , this is really off topic

The real topic , which I think you want to deflect is the FF slide .

I love it . . you make ridiculous claims, you offer to 'educate' me with some materials and then when challenged on it you pull the 'off-topic' card. . . Even though you seem to be able to turn almost every topic into a FF=BAD debate...


The answer to your question is that only 3 and 5 above are less probable because both are outside the margin of error. 1,2 & 4 are equally probable (as demonstrated in your own link, the appropriate portion of which I extracted to make it easier for you). A +/- 3% margin of error means that if you repeat the sample on different random populations then 19 times out of 20, the result for a particular party will be within 3% of each other . .

You should really read your own link before you start trying to educate other on statistics.. . (particularly others who are already trained in statistics, in my case, biostatistics)

Anyway, back on topic . . !

Even if your amateur understanding of statistics were correct and even if the true support for Fianna Fail was running at 17%, how on earth can you conclude that this indicates a Fianna Fail 'slide' ? ?

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I love it . . you make ridiculous claims, you offer to 'educate' me with some materials and then when challenged on it you pull the 'off-topic' card. . . Even though you seem to be able to turn almost every topic into a FF=BAD debate...


The answer to your question is that only 3 and 5 above are less probable because both are outside the margin of error. 1,2 & 4 are equally probable (as demonstrated in your own link, the appropriate portion of which I extracted to make it easier for you). A +/- 3% margin of error means that if you repeat the sample on different random populations then 19 times out of 20, the result for a particular party will be within 3% of each other . .

You should really read your own link before you start trying to educate other on statistics.. . (particularly others who are already trained in statistics, in my case, biostatistics)

Anyway, back on topic . . !

Even if your amateur understanding of statistics were correct and even if the true support for Fianna Fail was running at 17%, how on earth can you conclude that this indicates a Fianna Fail 'slide' ? ?

Ok I give up with you . You believe that the distribution is square rather than a bell curve . A hideous notion but anyway. That's ok lets move on.

On the FF thing they slipped 1%. That's a reduction in support.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

Ok I give up with you . You believe that the distribution is square rather than a bell curve . A hideous notion but anyway. That's ok lets move on.

On the FF thing they slipped 1%. That's a reduction in support.

Thanks, I understand bell shaped distribution :rolleyes: Please stop trying to teach statistics that you don't understand to a statistician !

Your mistake is in assuming that 17 is the midpoint . . i.e. is at the centre of the distribution. It is a single result which could just as likely be at either end.



It is not a slip in support if it is statistically insignificant (as it certainly is) and it definitely isn't a 'slide' (which would typically indicate a more dramatic shift).

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Thanks, I understand bell shaped distribution :rolleyes: Please stop trying to teach statistics that you don't understand to a statistician !

Your mistake is in assuming that 17 is the midpoint . . i.e. is at the centre of the distribution. It is a single result which could just as likely be at either end.



It is not a slip in support if it is statistically insignificant (as it certainly is) and it definitely isn't a 'slide' (which would typically indicate a more dramatic shift).

We could go on forever on this, but I choose not to as a courtesy to other posters.

You are mixing up probability with possibility.

It is probable that FF support is dropping based on the latest result. However due to the margin of error +-3% based on a 95% confidence level it is possible that they have not dropped.

In any case I see it as a slide in popularity for FF and long may it continue.

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

We could go on forever on this, but I choose not to as a courtesy to other posters.

You are mixing up probability with possibility.

It is probable that FF support is dropping based on the latest result. However due to the margin of error +-3% based on a 95% confidence level it is possible that they have not dropped.

In any case I see it as a slide in popularity for FF and long may it continue.

Raymon, it seems you are spinning things here a little bit.

This is the RedC statement on FF support in the actual opinion poll, which highlights gains have been made since the presidential election . . .

Fianna Fail just secure second place across the electorate, by taking 17% of the first preference vote.
The party appeared to make some gains after the Presidential Election, with strongest support outside of Dublin and among those over 55.

Say whatever you will but the actual report can be read in full here.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Raymon, it seems you are spinning things here a little bit.

This is the RedC statement on FF support in the actual opinion poll, which highlights gains have been made since the presidential election . . .



Say whatever you will but the actual report can be read in full here.

Thanks for getting the discussion back on track.

However FF is clearly down one point from the last poll

Mr.Micro

raymon wrote: »

Thanks for getting the discussion back on track.

However FF is clearly down one point from the last poll

Well raymon, some people are clearly trying to get something positive from the last poll in desperation.As you say FF down -1, that is positive. FF were always good at manipulating figures, but never the truth.