One thing about not working in an office and working at home is I miss the day before a holiday.
If I was in an office right now, I'd be goofing off and talking to people, and there would be lots of snacks and food to eat. Then in the early afternoon, management would annouce that we could go home early.
But I'm already at home, and I'm working because I don't have a party and holiday atmosphere to distract me.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
I don't know why I'm letting myself get so upset about the San Francisco mayoral. I'm politically stupid as hell, and since I've lived here, I've never voted for the person that eventually became mayor of the city, and has it affected my life. NO!
The KPIX poll shows Gonzalez ahead is that his lead is among likely voters or people who are eligible to vote. But at the end, KPIX had to admit that Newsome has the lead among probable voters, or people who actually vote.
The saddest thing is people don't vote. We would have totally different elected individuals if we had 100% participation.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to vote for mayor, since my track record is so bad. But early training is hard to escape from. My left wing hippie teachers and my dad taught me all through my life that it was my civic duty to volunteer, protest and vote. I had only one vote, and if I didn't use it I'd lose it.
I wish more people thought this way about voting. As it is they don't, and maybe lucky for me I'll have voted for the winner of the San Francisco's mayor's race.
But I'm not counting on it. And to think I still fantasize about being a political consultant, which is a hoot and half because I'm so politically ignorant!
The KPIX poll shows Gonzalez ahead is that his lead is among likely voters or people who are eligible to vote. But at the end, KPIX had to admit that Newsome has the lead among probable voters, or people who actually vote.
The saddest thing is people don't vote. We would have totally different elected individuals if we had 100% participation.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to vote for mayor, since my track record is so bad. But early training is hard to escape from. My left wing hippie teachers and my dad taught me all through my life that it was my civic duty to volunteer, protest and vote. I had only one vote, and if I didn't use it I'd lose it.
I wish more people thought this way about voting. As it is they don't, and maybe lucky for me I'll have voted for the winner of the San Francisco's mayor's race.
But I'm not counting on it. And to think I still fantasize about being a political consultant, which is a hoot and half because I'm so politically ignorant!
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
I'm starting to smell a media hype regarding the SF mayoral election, and I don't like it. Yes, yes, I know they've got to pay their bills but I'm an analyst and I'm adding up the facts here that they're just not adding up very logically.
I was paid by one company traded on the NY Stock Exchange and one company traded on NASDAQ for my analytical skills, and my meager abilities to put thousands of random facts together in a way that made sense. All I can say is that something is out of whack here with the election reporting and coverage.
I'm getting the same feeling I got when the media was hyping the 2000 presidential election in California and insisting that the state was in play for Bush, and when they were hyping the long term financial future and prospects of the dotcom stocks. And we all know what happened with those media predictions.
I hate when things don't make sense. I hate when the numbers don't add up. I used to be able to add up and balance $2 billion dollars in sales down to the pennies and be able to tell you a minutae of detail as to why we made the sales, and I'm telling you the SF Mayoral election media coverage feels like they're cooking the books.
I know San Francisco is whacky, but we're not that whacky enough to break the laws of math and science.
I was paid by one company traded on the NY Stock Exchange and one company traded on NASDAQ for my analytical skills, and my meager abilities to put thousands of random facts together in a way that made sense. All I can say is that something is out of whack here with the election reporting and coverage.
I'm getting the same feeling I got when the media was hyping the 2000 presidential election in California and insisting that the state was in play for Bush, and when they were hyping the long term financial future and prospects of the dotcom stocks. And we all know what happened with those media predictions.
I hate when things don't make sense. I hate when the numbers don't add up. I used to be able to add up and balance $2 billion dollars in sales down to the pennies and be able to tell you a minutae of detail as to why we made the sales, and I'm telling you the SF Mayoral election media coverage feels like they're cooking the books.
I know San Francisco is whacky, but we're not that whacky enough to break the laws of math and science.
The polls don't look good for Newsome, but thank god for blogs. I found a reputable SF political blog that said the KPIX numbers are suspect.
"KPIX Poll Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On
A couple of days ago, KPIX-TV Channel 5 released “poll” numbers that purported to show Matt Gonzalez leading Gavin Newsom by a few percentage points in the Mayor's race.
Unfortunately, the results had absolutely no bearing on reality. Indeed, this “poll” has so many problems that it's hard to know where to begin - but let's try anyway.
First - the thing wasn't done by human beings. It was done by machine. People simply responded by punching buttons on their telephones in response to automated questions. These types of polls are well known to be useless, absolutely unreliable and highly inaccurate.
More importantly, though, the KPIX poll didn't sample likely voters, or even registered voters. It simply asked participants whether or not they were likely to vote - and of course, the overwhelming majority said they would, so their response counted.
Let's put this in context: 52 percent of the folks polled in the KPIX poll said they were “certain to vote” and another 44 percent said they were “probably” going to vote, which means that, if these numbers are to be believed, the turnout for the Dec. 9 election will be somewhere around 96 percent.
That ain't gonna happen.
Even in the best years, voter turnout barely breaks 60 percent; the turnout in the general election on Nov. 4 was only 45 percent and historically, the numbers for the runoff are always lower. If more than 35 percent turn out next month, that would be a strong showing.
Yet, no one at KPIX saw fit to put the numbers in the proper context when the results were reported. Instead, KPIX and the station's partner in crime, the San Francisco Chronicle, simply reported the “poll” results as if they were statistically valid, which they clearly are not.
To say that was a disservice to the station's viewers and the paper's readers would be an understatement, at best. "
KPIX used Survey USA at the time this article was posted, and they used the same survey company again for the November 25 poll.
Thanks to FJGallagher for the info.
"KPIX Poll Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On
A couple of days ago, KPIX-TV Channel 5 released “poll” numbers that purported to show Matt Gonzalez leading Gavin Newsom by a few percentage points in the Mayor's race.
Unfortunately, the results had absolutely no bearing on reality. Indeed, this “poll” has so many problems that it's hard to know where to begin - but let's try anyway.
First - the thing wasn't done by human beings. It was done by machine. People simply responded by punching buttons on their telephones in response to automated questions. These types of polls are well known to be useless, absolutely unreliable and highly inaccurate.
More importantly, though, the KPIX poll didn't sample likely voters, or even registered voters. It simply asked participants whether or not they were likely to vote - and of course, the overwhelming majority said they would, so their response counted.
Let's put this in context: 52 percent of the folks polled in the KPIX poll said they were “certain to vote” and another 44 percent said they were “probably” going to vote, which means that, if these numbers are to be believed, the turnout for the Dec. 9 election will be somewhere around 96 percent.
That ain't gonna happen.
Even in the best years, voter turnout barely breaks 60 percent; the turnout in the general election on Nov. 4 was only 45 percent and historically, the numbers for the runoff are always lower. If more than 35 percent turn out next month, that would be a strong showing.
Yet, no one at KPIX saw fit to put the numbers in the proper context when the results were reported. Instead, KPIX and the station's partner in crime, the San Francisco Chronicle, simply reported the “poll” results as if they were statistically valid, which they clearly are not.
To say that was a disservice to the station's viewers and the paper's readers would be an understatement, at best. "
KPIX used Survey USA at the time this article was posted, and they used the same survey company again for the November 25 poll.
Thanks to FJGallagher for the info.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)