<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Only 43% of Democrats are &#8216;hopeful&#8217; that we will win in Iraq</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/02/18/only-43-of-democrats-are-hopeful-that-we-will-win-in-iraq/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/02/18/only-43-of-democrats-are-hopeful-that-we-will-win-in-iraq/</link>
	<description>Don&#039;t dis or dismiss this miss!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:23:12 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Leslie</title>
		<link>http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/02/18/only-43-of-democrats-are-hopeful-that-we-will-win-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-698076</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:39:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/02/18/only-43-of-democrats-are-hopeful-that-we-will-win-in-iraq/#comment-698076</guid>
		<description>Being &quot;not hopeful&quot; of success does not equate to &quot;hoping for failure.&quot;

As for the number of people polled: 1,800 rather than 900 pollees, say, would reduce the margin for error by a certain proportion. Alas, I know not what that proportion might be. Anyway, it would obviously be more expensive to poll another 900 people who are too bored, or too dumb not to consult the caller ID panel on their phones, before picking them up.

:-?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Being &#8220;not hopeful&#8221; of success does not equate to &#8220;hoping for failure.&#8221;</p>
<p>As for the number of people polled: 1,800 rather than 900 pollees, say, would reduce the margin for error by a certain proportion. Alas, I know not what that proportion might be. Anyway, it would obviously be more expensive to poll another 900 people who are too bored, or too dumb not to consult the caller ID panel on their phones, before picking them up.</p>
<p><img src='http://sistertoldjah.com/smilies/yahoo_think.gif' alt='&#58;&#45;&#63;' class='wp-smiley' width='18' height='18' title='&#58;&#45;&#63;' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marshall Art</title>
		<link>http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/02/18/only-43-of-democrats-are-hopeful-that-we-will-win-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-697983</link>
		<dc:creator>Marshall Art</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/02/18/only-43-of-democrats-are-hopeful-that-we-will-win-in-iraq/#comment-697983</guid>
		<description>I wish they&#039;d expand the scope of that poll to include more than 900 respondents.  Polls piss me off.  I don&#039;t buy that they&#039;re truly representative due to the low numbers of people polled.  900 out of how many million?  That&#039;s not to say that the numbers would be that much different, but it would sure be better support for the result.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish they&#8217;d expand the scope of that poll to include more than 900 respondents.  Polls piss me off.  I don&#8217;t buy that they&#8217;re truly representative due to the low numbers of people polled.  900 out of how many million?  That&#8217;s not to say that the numbers would be that much different, but it would sure be better support for the result.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
