Page 1 of 1 pages
Nice article - check out a write up and photos of Mark Penn, and his guests at his recent book launch party in Washington DC.
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/5199.html
Posted by bencoffeyclark on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Its a sad day in America if these are the individuals attempting to help shape the direction of this country…
Mr. Penn would be of bigger service helping Microsoft try and position itself against Google or helping General Motors manage the potential upcoming strike against the UAW… LOL
It speaks volumes about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton that Mr. Penn has these little shallow views of Americans…
MicroAmericans… create some soft political fluff and get their votes…
Yup… that is why Mrs. Clinton polls best with lower income older folks… same crowd you can easily merchandise a new shampoo or car to…
Posted by Cate on Sep 14, 2007 at 1:37 PM
fyi
Klein is right: 4 is larger than 1. But that has nothing to do with the validity of findings in Sergio BenDixon’s polls in the 1 per cent range. Margins of error near the boundaries of 0 and 100 are treated quite differently than the margin of error near the midpoint of 50. (because -3 could never be a possible answer). Klein might want to look that up since it shows such a lack of basic understanding of statistics that it suggests the rest of his observations are about as accurate.
Posted by test100 on Sep 14, 2007 at 10:31 PM
test100 is right about the margin of error being much smaller for poll results at the extremes, but it doesn’t take away from Klein’s point about Penn’s dubious tactic of investing his 1 percenters with disproportionate influence.
Actually, I don’t know why Klein mentioned the margin of error at all, apart from its (incorrect) use as a gotcha moment. It doesn’t add to the piece at all, which is strong enough without it.
Posted by Eddie visits on Sep 15, 2007 at 2:12 AM
I was given a galley of this book before it came out, from a local bookseller, who assured me that I would find it fascinating.
Unfortunately, it was utterly idiotic and unreadable, had to skip over pages & pages just to get through. Penn is looking at little tiny stories without any ability whatever to see the larger picture. A real shame.
Posted by Mr_Anonymous on Sep 15, 2007 at 4:36 AM
That one percent thing is pitiful. Penn knows that this is a representative democracy depending on voting for politicians. One percent can’t vote anyone into office and in fact won’t even get their one percent displayed in polls on TV. That one percent is utterly powerless so how does Penn attribute influence to that statistical anomaly?
Posted by Jon B on Sep 15, 2007 at 5:37 AM
The point made by test100 about margin of error at the extremes is true of real statistics, but we are talking polling here. They can call polling “scientific” all they want, but it lacks the truthiness of statistical analysis of raw data such as home prices, sports stats, income distribution, etc. Polling can’t really determine a truthful stat from a false one. There are poll respondents that purposefully answer the questions with lies, and others that don’t really pay attention to the question and answer incorrectly. Additionally, polling by telephone is quickly emerging as flawed in the distribution of population due to increasing use of cell phones that aren’t called by pollsters.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 16, 2007 at 3:43 AM
“astonishingly”...“astonishingly”...“I was shocked”...“shockingly”
Someone please subdue this feller and take his loaded ‘astonishingly’ away from him; someone might get hurt. Blunt trauma to the brain.
“Penn would not only be failed…” The insipid book in question, from the evidence offered, most certainly needs a lambasting; ‘tis a pity the job was assigned to someone who, astonishingly, writes so shockingly poorly. I wish you would be failed.
Posted by rhizome on Nov 3, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Nice article - check out a write up and photos of Mark Penn, and his guests at his recent book launch party in Washington DC.
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/5199.html
Its a sad day in America if these are the individuals attempting to help shape the direction of this country…
Mr. Penn would be of bigger service helping Microsoft try and position itself against Google or helping General Motors manage the potential upcoming strike against the UAW… LOL
It speaks volumes about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton that Mr. Penn has these little shallow views of Americans…
MicroAmericans… create some soft political fluff and get their votes…
Yup… that is why Mrs. Clinton polls best with lower income older folks… same crowd you can easily merchandise a new shampoo or car to…
fyi
Klein is right: 4 is larger than 1. But that has nothing to do with the validity of findings in Sergio BenDixon’s polls in the 1 per cent range. Margins of error near the boundaries of 0 and 100 are treated quite differently than the margin of error near the midpoint of 50. (because -3 could never be a possible answer). Klein might want to look that up since it shows such a lack of basic understanding of statistics that it suggests the rest of his observations are about as accurate.
test100 is right about the margin of error being much smaller for poll results at the extremes, but it doesn’t take away from Klein’s point about Penn’s dubious tactic of investing his 1 percenters with disproportionate influence.
Actually, I don’t know why Klein mentioned the margin of error at all, apart from its (incorrect) use as a gotcha moment. It doesn’t add to the piece at all, which is strong enough without it.
I was given a galley of this book before it came out, from a local bookseller, who assured me that I would find it fascinating.
Unfortunately, it was utterly idiotic and unreadable, had to skip over pages & pages just to get through. Penn is looking at little tiny stories without any ability whatever to see the larger picture. A real shame.
That one percent thing is pitiful. Penn knows that this is a representative democracy depending on voting for politicians. One percent can’t vote anyone into office and in fact won’t even get their one percent displayed in polls on TV. That one percent is utterly powerless so how does Penn attribute influence to that statistical anomaly?
The point made by test100 about margin of error at the extremes is true of real statistics, but we are talking polling here. They can call polling “scientific” all they want, but it lacks the truthiness of statistical analysis of raw data such as home prices, sports stats, income distribution, etc. Polling can’t really determine a truthful stat from a false one. There are poll respondents that purposefully answer the questions with lies, and others that don’t really pay attention to the question and answer incorrectly. Additionally, polling by telephone is quickly emerging as flawed in the distribution of population due to increasing use of cell phones that aren’t called by pollsters.
“astonishingly”...“astonishingly”...“I was shocked”...“shockingly”
Someone please subdue this feller and take his loaded ‘astonishingly’ away from him; someone might get hurt. Blunt trauma to the brain.
“Penn would not only be failed…” The insipid book in question, from the evidence offered, most certainly needs a lambasting; ‘tis a pity the job was assigned to someone who, astonishingly, writes so shockingly poorly. I wish you would be failed.
register a new account »Posting Security