It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Indigo5
What a bunch of cry babies...explain you methodology!! Kinda important if you want a poll to be taken seriously!
They do... at the bottom of the web page that shows poll results. I think the problem here is that Axelrod didn't like their methodologies and associated results, and they refused to change them.
Here is the sum total of Axelrod comments cited, directly or indirectly, by the Daily Caller article Varney was pushing. Note how "furious" Axelrod appeared to be.
Twitter:
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
Smart piece by Ron Brownstein on polling, demographics and why Gallup is saddled with some methodological problems.
LINKK TO ARTICLE DISCUSSING GALLUP METHODOLOGY
The Caller article did not show that Axelrod directly contacted anyone at Gallup at any time. While it alleged that internal Gallup emails show him "attempting to subtly intimidate" the firm,
only 22 percent of the Gallup survey was non-white, according to figures the organization provided to Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz.
in 2008, minorities comprised 26 percent of all voters, according to exit polls;
the Obama campaign, and other analysts, project the minority share of the vote will increase to 28 percent in 2012.
In its survey, Pew, for instance, puts the non-white share at 25 percent.
The division between the white and non-white share of the vote profoundly affects the results because all of the surveys show a racial gap between Obama and Romney that could be at least as large as 2008.
Originally posted by Zarniwoop
You seem to have made up your mind based solely on the plaintiff's accusations prior to a jury trial and any defense from Gallup.
The Plaintiffs don't always tell the truth
And this last bit seems to defy logic...must we prove murder before charging someone with murder?
Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Indigo5
And this last bit seems to defy logic...must we prove murder before charging someone with murder?
No. You must prove something happened beyond a reasonable doubt, and allow for a defense before applying a guilty verdict.
Thanks for the tips on how to avoid sitting on a jury
Originally posted by RealSpoke
“Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology…You got a nice poll there … would be a shame if anything happened to it… .’”
LOL
If gallup really does de-fraud the government and public then they deserve to get served. The lawsuit isn't anything new.
edit on 6-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Zarniwoop
Still doesn't change the fact that they might have de-frauded the government.
It's like getting pulled over for speeding, pissing off the cop, then complaining that you got a ticket. You still broke the law from speeding, so stop complaining about a ticket.
edit on 6-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)
You claimed that somehow since the charges were is dispute...what did you say? something like "witnesses can lie"?....that somehow that denial of the charges meant that the charges were invalid in reagrds to "Whistleblower law".
I have not convicted Gallup...it is my strong opinion, more so since their effort to distract from and obfuscate the matter...that they are guilty...but still my opinion all the same.
But for you to either paint me of convicting them for expressing my opinion? Or argue that the charges are invalid...because it is your (seemingly baseless) opinion that the witness might be dishonest? Both false arguments...
They were RIGHTLY charged by the justice department and this case is PRECISELY what the whistleblower law was aimed at combatting....Government contractors defrauding the Government out of our taxpayer dollars.
The rest can be determined in a court of law...but your claim that somehow this didn't qualify for Whistleblower status has been proven false.