Kos publishes a critique of the polling firm he used for the last year or so, and comes to the (correct in my opinion) conclusion that he was defrauded.
A combination of random sampling error and systematic difference should make the M results differ a bit from the F results, and in almost every case they do differ. In one respect, however, the numbers for M and F do not differ: if one is even, so is the other, and likewise for odd. Given that the M and F results usually differ, knowing that say 43% of M were favorable (Fav) to Obama gives essentially no clue as to whether say 59% or say 60% of F would be. Thus knowing whether M Fav is even or odd tells us essentially nothing about whether F Fav would be even or odd.
Thus the even-odd property should match about half the time, just like the odds of getting both heads or both tails if you tossed a penny and nickel. If you were to toss the penny and the nickel 18 times (like the 18 entries in the first two columns of the table) you would expect them to show about the same number of heads, but would rightly be shocked if they each showed exactly the same random-looking pattern of heads and tails.
Were the results in our little table a fluke? The R2K weekly polls report 778 M-F pairs. For their favorable ratings (Fav), the even-odd property matched 776 times. For unfavorable (Unf) there were 777 matches.
That's pretty obviously hanky-panky; indeed, it suggests that the three outliers were mistakes by the person compiling--err, creating--the poll results.
Is being covered extensively by the blogs. Brief version: Former Reason blogger Dave Weigel was hired by the Washington Post to cover the conservative movement. Weigel supposedly has conservative leanings himself. But it turns out that he blasted several conservatives on a private e-mail list.
Doesn't sound all that bad, until I mention what the private e-mail list is: JournoList, the listserve that juicebox boy Ezra Klein started up a few years ago. And at that point, Weigel had to go. Not for his statements, but for being part of that list, which means that he has no credibility as a conservative.
To start with, it's important to note that all of the comments at the center of the recent uproar were made on a private email list that was supposed to be off the record. Just for a moment, think of the things that you'd say if you were joking or venting anger among friends, and imagine if they became public with context removed. If everything we said privately were public, I wonder how many of us would be able to maintain jobs or friendships. Weigel is being attacked for writing that the world would be better if Matt Drudge could "set himself on fire." But people make off hand remarks like that all the time without literally wishing bodily harm upon other humans.
It's not so much what he said that matters; it's where he said it.
If there ever was a phrase that sums up what conservatism is all about fighting, it's "Money for Nothing." Worse, according to Jim Geraghty, the product he was pitching was a scam.
The infomercial promotes seminars that ostensibly instruct attendees how to get the “free money grants.” Tucson TV station KVOA did an investigation of National Grants Conferences that you can watch here. The TV station’s investigative team found that the workshops cost from $999 to $1,200 and federal government grants really aren’t even available to individuals.
