First of all, thanks for the volunteer work you're doing. A call here, a call there starts to add up. Again, thank you.
"I'll put my randoms up against your scientifically selected panels any day, Sarah."
Are they scientifically selected? The whole focus group thing is the least useful offering from the the Bulwark, in my opinion. Why is the methodology behind the groups not published anywhere? Who are these people? How are they selected? Randomly? Are the questions administered in a systematic way, and responses recorded in a way that allows drawing valid conclusions? If not, what is the point? I listened to one Focus Group podcast and that was enough for me.
If I'm wrong about this (and I've been wrong before) and the focus group methodology is described somewhere, please paste a link for me.
It's not posted than I am aware of but Sarah has talked about it in pods
They hire a professional group to find the people with the attributes they want to focus on...
It isn't random and it isn't like a poll
Sarah says: we want Trump to Biden voters, and the group screens for those and any other requirements, but nothing else...it is very tailored and specific...
As Sarah doesn't do the actual polling and they aren't asking any questions like a poll, there are no cross tabs
Maybe I'm being too pedantic, but it seems a lot like walking into a random bar and striking up conversations with your fellow drinkers. It certainly could be entertaining -- even provide a few laughs in the Jay Walking sense -- but the basis for political analysis? Not without a description of the approach and methodology and why we should believe in the accuracy of the conclusions. Otherwise it just seems like more noise. Sarah seems to take it all so seriously though. If it's serious, tell us why we should agree.
The whole approach and methodology is they want to ask questions to specific people to see what they think, so she can target them in her RVAT ads to convince them not to vote for Trump, and to get an idea what they think about several things,,,her conclusions are considered accurate because of her reputation at being good at this, why she writes for The Atlantic, WA PO, NYT's etc...and appears on cable news shows...she was a political operative before Trump too
First of all, thanks for the volunteer work you're doing. A call here, a call there starts to add up. Again, thank you.
"I'll put my randoms up against your scientifically selected panels any day, Sarah."
Are they scientifically selected? The whole focus group thing is the least useful offering from the the Bulwark, in my opinion. Why is the methodology behind the groups not published anywhere? Who are these people? How are they selected? Randomly? Are the questions administered in a systematic way, and responses recorded in a way that allows drawing valid conclusions? If not, what is the point? I listened to one Focus Group podcast and that was enough for me.
If I'm wrong about this (and I've been wrong before) and the focus group methodology is described somewhere, please paste a link for me.
It's not posted than I am aware of but Sarah has talked about it in pods
They hire a professional group to find the people with the attributes they want to focus on...
It isn't random and it isn't like a poll
Sarah says: we want Trump to Biden voters, and the group screens for those and any other requirements, but nothing else...it is very tailored and specific...
As Sarah doesn't do the actual polling and they aren't asking any questions like a poll, there are no cross tabs
Maybe I'm being too pedantic, but it seems a lot like walking into a random bar and striking up conversations with your fellow drinkers. It certainly could be entertaining -- even provide a few laughs in the Jay Walking sense -- but the basis for political analysis? Not without a description of the approach and methodology and why we should believe in the accuracy of the conclusions. Otherwise it just seems like more noise. Sarah seems to take it all so seriously though. If it's serious, tell us why we should agree.
The whole approach and methodology is they want to ask questions to specific people to see what they think, so she can target them in her RVAT ads to convince them not to vote for Trump, and to get an idea what they think about several things,,,her conclusions are considered accurate because of her reputation at being good at this, why she writes for The Atlantic, WA PO, NYT's etc...and appears on cable news shows...she was a political operative before Trump too