$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsbook,ncaa,ncaa Betting,nc…

health care issues in america

It might be of interest to note that News Ltd. outlets were not the only blatant Team Howard Cheerleaders this election. Oddly enough, the Fairfax-owned “Illawarra Mercury” incessantly fed its readers, the vast majority of whom reside in two hugely safe Labor seats, every possible Pro-Howard spin going.

“Mercury” campaign cartoons looked like paid Coalition negative ads, starting with that tired old “L” plate smear (strange how after the election the pundits discovered Labor’s wealth of frontbench talent). A plethora of fear-mongering anti-Labor letters to the editor, mostly by the same rabid bloke, were always given pride of place compared with pro-Labor letters. A final-week poll indicating that Lib Joanna Gash should retain Gilmour was an excuse to gift her a full frontpage, while Labor incumbents J. George and S. Bird rated scant coverage, naturally. The paper didn’t even bother to cover the Cunningham candidates’ forum which the Lib candidate avoided.

Most amusing of all was a final week special Young Voters feature interviewing one “typical” 18 year old, complete with his large photo. This lad declared proudly that he had never wavered from his intention to vote for Team Howard. Hey, guess we just don’t have any young Wollongong Team Rudd voters to provide a balance.

However, the noble journalistic integrity of “The Mercury” was kept in tact by their chickening-out of recommending a vote for either party. The final days of “cliffhanger” election headlines took all the guts they could summon, I’d surmise.

Had the ACN , Morgan and Newspoll Polls done around the weekend before the Election (aprox. around 54-46) been the Election result a week later , then your contention would be undisputed

But the fact is 3 polls showed a Labor ‘landslide one week out from the election ‘broadly’ consistent with the previous 9 months

THEN in the last week ‘narrowing’ occurred
DESPITE Howard having a poor last week ,

Numerous theories since have been advanced to explain why:

from wet liberals , Morgan’s soft labor voters , the Doctor’s wives , Labor’s negative ads had become stale , Liberals negative ads had added more ‘bite’ to them (which they had) , Howard’s late campaign non means tested Private Schools rebate swung some swinging voters hip pocket nerve ,
many voters did not tell pollsters the truth , alot of swinging voters believed in change but the ‘devil you know’ OR Aussie swinging voters natural conservatism took over
or the Murdoch Press’s cumulative effect of anti labor message on some swing voters

we are done the wiser
and No poll will be able to tell us

What I found most disquieting is the possibility that Newspoll and perhaps others were potentially impacting on election results through their overemphasis on the two party preferred numbers and insignificant “noise” shifts which enhanced their “drama” value for newspapers.

Anyone with a cursory background in assessment of argumentation and debates would be stumped by the comments of Newspoll’s chief during his weekly interviews on Skynews during the campaign. His “interpretation” of each new poll invariably drifted into pure speculation, often ignoring some of his own primary vote intention data. For example, he always put paramount emphasis on the “better able to manage the economy” lead which the coalition held to support his theory that the final result would be a cliffhanger. Labor’s lead in questions about the other major campaign issues, especially industrial relations, rarely received serious consideration.

I’ll leave it to others to speculate whether Newspoll’s chief, The OZ, Skynews and the tabloid papers ultimately made some narrowing finally eventuate by incessantly providing the “cover” for “soft Labor” people to vote with their hip pockets beyond all their other considerations.

Putting it very very simply – it’s how normal or nearly normal probability distributions work in practice. The difference between this approach and a national pendulum is that it better accommodates any large state differences in swing, and where seats might be clustered within the individual state pendulums.

But the key point Ron, is that the margins on any given seat dont mean much, only the collective total seats produced by those margins have meaning, for that, afterall, is the point of the process.

This probably isnt the place for this – ask on my site.

I am not wishing to cause friction between you guys however there is ‘out there’ a formula that should be able to be debated

1/ Possum lists in the 2nd Paragraph an UNKNOWN method using Newspoll
data he would have used to arrive at which seats would fall
We do not know what that method is

2/ Instead , as per Possums 3rd paragraph , he publishes a list of seats
which directly originate from Possum’s own ’swings formula’ using
Newspoll quarterly data

being seats that WOULD fall under the ‘ratios formula’ AT THAT TIME of
the Newspoll poll date if the Newspoll’s data is correct

I do not know whether Possum is saying as at the date of the Newspoll data , that Possums ’swings formula’:

a/ simply tells you HOW MANY total seats would be won at that time
from a formula aggregating seats per state and per 1 of 3 categories or

b/ in additional , the number of seats within each state within each of the
three seat categories , would be won at that time

with the seats nominated being the statistical selections
AND FAILING ANY OF THESE BEING WON ,
that other equivalent seats in that state will be won at that time ,
within that particular seat category of safe ALP, safe Lib and Marginal

3/ IF Possum only intends the object of the ’swings formula’ to be a/
ie. an alternative to the McKerras Pendulum giving total seats

then in fact Possum is STILLl using an aggregation of all the variable seat numbers by state and by category within each state which I listed in b/
to arrive at that total seat won figure

Conclusion
Either way , the ’swings formula’ aggregates by state and by category within each state a count of seats won

a/ Therefore for every ‘Warringah” listed which on historical evidence can not be won , you have to replace it with an EQUIVALENT 6% plus swing seat in THAT state

b/ the very publication of seats in Sept including numerous seats that will
NEVER ever be won but calculated directly using the ’swings formula’
tends to make the ’swings formula’ open to question

Adam , I would appreciate your views