Look, I know this is one big fat party foul, but...

THIS IS GREAT NEWS! FOR HILLARY!

Posted at May 9, 2008 6:31 PM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

Now honesty, how many times have you said something to the effect of "yesterday was the tipping point tat proved that Obama can't win." I could be mixing you up with somebody else -- but seriously -- I take it that this time Obama is not just "destroyed," but now on Double Secret Probation?

Posted at April 30, 2008 11:18 AM in response to Poll: Hillary Ahead By Eight In Indiana

I stand corrected; they didn't weight, they simply pulled another sample of blacks entirely.

Either way, it's perfectly normal legitimate pollster practice; which is bound to confuse the hell out of people and let charlatan poll inspectors (and remember, you can't spell charlatan poll inspector without C L I N T O N) whine.

Another reason why America is getting dumber as a result of this protracted nomination battle.

Posted at March 27, 2008 4:17 PM in response to Pollster: We Did Not Over-Represent African Americans In Asking About Wright

It was never legitimate spin to begin with.

I read the original story about the poll mentioning the black "oversamples" yersterday and I knew what it meant -- they polled more blacks, but then they weighted the results to make the final numbers fair and representative. The oversampling was simply to improve the MOE among the black sub-sample (which is normally astronomical -- NEVER trust a poll that comments on what "black people think" unless they did an oversample!)

But I also knew ignorant people would go ballistic, not knowing that the results are weighted afterwards to insure the correct outcome.

Posted at March 27, 2008 4:14 PM in response to Pollster: We Did Not Over-Represent African Americans In Asking About Wright

I'm not familiar with all the aspects of this law, but it seems to me that there are four players, not three, involved in health insurance. Romney was on television earlier talking about how this includes employers, workers, and the government. But what about insurers?

It seems to me that this bill effectively shifts the demand curve for health insurance. Unless there is regulation capping insurance premiums, then the only beneficiary any law which allows opt-out (as this does, with a $1,000 penalty) will be insurance companies, which would simply jack up their premia by $1,000 (or so).

So I suppose my question is - what contribution are insurers making to this? Are there price controls or other regulation to reign them in?     

Posted at April 5, 2006 5:33 PM in response to The Problem with the Massachusetts Mandate