Reply #68: Now your are just being purposefully specious....

[TAZller]

As much as you would like to put words in my mouth, I did not say, nor do I agree with this idiotic statement. What I did say is that a biased, nonrandom, nonscientific poll returns a nonscientific, biased non-representative result.

"If there was freeping it should occur for all candidates, not just Kucinich"
Huh?... Freeping by nature is balanced? Oh never mind. Let me be clear that I make no claim that Kucinich benefited disproportionately from freeping. But, all one has to do is look at Kucinich's own web site and see that his supporters at the MINIMUM were inviting freeping and then rejoicing in their OWN perceived success of their efforts: http://action.dennis4president.com/forum/posts/id_1997/page_last/

POSTED BY: RobertRuszkowski on 11/09/2007 11:26:32
"Dennis is currently in Second place. Obama is in first place. WE NEED MORE VOTES PEOPLE!
The nation magazine is a major liberal publication, so a good showing here might really help Dennis. Take a couple of minutes to vote. We marshalled a big response for the DFA poll, let's do it again, and get the attention of Nation Magazine! You never know, maybe they will run an article about his growing popularity."

In Response and furthering of the call to freep:

POSTED BY: Isaac707 on 11/09/2007 16:56:50
I voted, also posted a bulletin on myspace.

And then a mere 10 hours after the first call to action:

POSTED BY: RobertRuszkowski on 11/09/2007 22:17:57
Dennis has moved into the lead. Great Job everyone!!!

I have no idea what degree freeping had on the results, and that is the problem with Self-Selected Activist-Promoted online polls. My point is the prospect of freeping decreases the level of confidence in inferences one can make from the result of an online poll. The FACT that a call to arms was made, action was taken, and a mere 10 hours later the lead that had taken 2 days to be established had changed, should raise skepticism.

Those entries also prove the falsehood of your statements: "his lead has been steady and growing for this period of time". Whatever.

If you are encouraged by this poll, and its results, more power to you. It says more positive about your candidate than if he would have lost. It is an indication of support somewhere. It says nothing of the sort to your claims that "Dennis is way head and shoulders above any other candidate" or his prospects as a Democratic Nominee for the nation at large, however.

The last fact I would like to leave with you, is as you look at the very poll itself you would see three little words that you conveniently keep leaving off of your useless results. Now these are not my words, they are written right on the polls results: Not Statistically Valid. http://www.thenation.com/poll/primaryvote1108

So, admitted "Not Statistically Valid" poll results subject to a proven call to freep are the type that "Dennis and his campaign team should be shouting from the rooftops!"? Lordy, my!