Maybe this will help:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004536.php

I don't have time right now to plug the numbers into the 5 line Excel spreadsheet, but using the table provided by Kevin Drum, the odds that this poll is showing a real lead are 90%.

Statistical dead heat, my ass.

Posted at July 2, 2008 8:35 PM in response to Twisting The Truth: A Statistical Dead Heat? I don't think so

Should be: "Its stonewalling efforts..."

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Posted at June 25, 2008 9:56 AM in response to Today's Must Read

just outside the the ±3.1% margin of error

Eric, doubling the "margin of error" number and discounting any lead that is smaller than that result is Terry McAuliffe style math - and greatly misleading. The margin of error is always reported in these type of polls, and it's most useful as simply a way of reminded us that there is going to be some uncertainty in the result; a difference that is within the margin of error is less reliable than one that isn't, of course. But it isn't a magic cut-off between significant and insignificant.

A lead this wide is not just barely statistically significant - it is real.

The odds are 97.87% that Obama really leads McCain in the entire population from which NBC/WSJ pulled their sample.

More margin of error discussion, by Kevin Drum:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004536.php

Posted at June 12, 2008 9:44 AM in response to Poll: Obama Leads McCain, Dominates In Key Demographics

There is a larger issue here. TPM apparently does not have a policy on how even factual corrections or edits are disclosed.

For instance, about a year ago, Steve Bennen misread and misreported a news item about the massacre of twenty or so people who worked in the Baghdad market that McCain had visited and famously praised as being safe the previous day - the massacre actually took place outside Baghdad, the victims were pulled off a bus and murdered - but Bennen initially reported that the massacre had taken place in the market itself.

Sometime later, after being notified by readers of the error, he did change the story, but there is no indication in the story that an edit was made. There is no list of corrections anywhere on the web site either. I suspect the vast majority of readers who read the initial version of the story never knew that a correction had been made and thus were let with an entirely different picture of the events.

That is just one example that springs to mind.

I will say that Josh seems to hold himself to a higher standard in notifying readers of corrections- using "update" or some such to add new information to his posts. But the Muckraker and EC sections really need a policy of how to notify readers of significant, and in particular of factual, corrections and late edits to posts.

Salon.com seems to have a good policy for corrections and late edits - disclosure in at least general terms appended to the article itself (this Josh does for his own posts), and a central list of corrections that readers can access. I wish TPM would adopt a similar site-wide policy.

It's a matter of credibility.

(And, yeah, advocating for a edit and corrections policy is how I became known as NitPicker2.)

Posted at June 7, 2008 10:53 AM in response to Unprofessional, dishonest editing of a TPM report

An individual can donate $2300 to each of any number of different candidates for the primary election.

So, Obama could appeal to his own maxed-out donors to help Clinton out. Hopefully the maxed-out Clinton donors would reciprocate by donating to Obama's campaign.

The idea that money raised this way doesn't hurt Obama is wrong though. Donors who have reached the limits for his primary and general campaigns and still have money in their pockets could put that money to good use in any number of state and local races, the DNC, the DCCC, etc. To the extent that that money is diverted from activities that actually are furthering the interests of the Democratic Party and its candidates, retiring her debt is a bad deal. Any money that could be raised from anyone who is not maxed-out (for Obama's campaign, primary and general funds, both) really should go to Obama.

The way it is supposed to work though, is that Hillary goes out and does a bunch of fundraisers for Obama and raises buckets of money that he wouldn't otherwise be getting, and in return, he does a few fundraisers to retire her debt. I'm skeptical that she can bring that kind of money in - I mean donations that Obama wouldn't otherwise get - and remember, after all, that her fundraising couldn't sustain her own campaign. There is a case for making more-or-less token donations to Hillary as a goodwill gesture, in the interest of party unity, but that case depends on Hillary doing something real to help the Obama campaign. Simply suspending her campaign, and her attacks on him, isn't by itself enough.

Of course, the situation is further complicated by Hillary's having used her personal wealth to keep the campaign afloat, expecting to be paid back, and by the fact that that money was spent for the purpose of weakening Obama as a candidate. I suspect the amount of debt she is asking to have Obama retire for her is unprecedented. Personally, I think she should be out every dime she loaned her campaign, period, and I'd prefer her to pay Mark Penn's outrageous salary out of her own pocket too - a candidate can spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their own campaign.

Posted at June 6, 2008 11:51 AM in response to Report: Clinton To Seek Obama's Help Retiring Campaign Debts

Talk to your friends; talk to your neighbors. Even more important - listen to them too! Start paying attention to local races and issues as well.

Americans are conditioned to be afraid to talk about politics, at least according to some European friends of mine. They observed that we're too afraid of "offending" someone by disagreeing with them; that we are afraid of conflict. I see some truth in that observation, but my experience is that most people enjoy talking politics if you can find a way to get over the initial awkwardness of bringing it up.

Gotta tell you, I am a fan of the Texas hybrid system, because, even if for no other reason, "Did you go to the precinct caucus?" was a great conversation opener this year.

Posted at June 6, 2008 10:51 AM in response to So...Moving On

Hillary's own big-time donors can't pay it off because they've already maxed out - individuals are limited to $2300 for the primary (per candidate). No wiggle room there.

Posted at June 6, 2008 10:03 AM in response to Report: Clinton To Seek Obama's Help Retiring Campaign Debts

This is actually not true.

Thank you.

By the way, I hear that McAuliffe is being courted by several defense contractors for positions in their accounting and billing departments.

Posted at June 2, 2008 10:34 AM in response to McAuliffe: Hillary Is Winning Popular Vote Without Michigan

I suspect her promise was more along the lines of telling them they had a chance - with the primary - to say who would be on the ballot in November. So not promising them a direct vote in November, but an indirect vote now.

I know how that feels, being a Democrat in Texas - the chance this spring to have any say at all in a presidential contest was pretty amazing.

Of course she didn't tell the voters in PR that even that chance to have an indirect vote is, while not impossible, so improbable as to be wishful thinking. Judging by the turnout in PR, the voters figured that out on their own.

Posted at June 2, 2008 10:18 AM in response to Obama Rolls Out Second Super-Del Of The Day

I didn't see it that way initially, but now that you have provided that reading, I can. But I can't say for sure whether that was what Greg intended.

Guess what I need is a snark-o-meter graphic to accompany posts.

Posted at May 30, 2008 9:27 PM in response to Emails prove TPM bias for Clinton