?? Most all polls show a growing majority of Remainers. You can add a Soros and "hope not hate" argument in it, but it doesn't make much of a dent in the perceived trend.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Aug 12 2018 07:17am

the trend is there, but the guardian article treated this study like it produced definitive results, while it in fact was a highly partisan study. but the guardian itself is highly partisan when it comes to brexit, so I'm not surprised.

I also assume that remain has gained some ground since 2016, and that it would meanwhile have a clear albeit narrow majority. what I dont buy, however, is that the swing is as drastic and decisive as this specific study claimed.

as I said: even if we leave all the HNH and soros-stuff aside, this study is still based on data including the weeks before Chequers, which were the absolute low point for the brexit-process. so by the choice of the timeframe alone, this study can already be expected to have some anti-brexit bias.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 12 2018 07:49am

what study would you refer to that is not funded by any partisan group?
do you think leave has a real majority amongst brits?

sounds a bit like ghot / endless talk: 'i don't like the findings, so i try to discredit the source as biased.'

Are you denying the source is biased?

You're strawmanning him because he didn't say leave has a majority amongst brits, just that the shift towards Remain has been overly amplified due to bias. That is a perfectly reasonable point to make.

you might want to look up what strawmanning is. i'm asking him direct and genuine questions based on his posts, not arguing against a point he didn't make.
also, i'm not 'denying' (or defending for that matter) anything - i'm merely describing my impression that he's trying to discredit the study because he doesn't like the findings.

let me specify why, so you don't get too confused: if he pointed out specific things he took issue with (like for example biased phrasing, insufficient sample size, cherry picked participants...) i'd understand his reservations, but simply pointing to evil soros and 'obscure' market research groups without any ACTUAL arguments seems a bit lazy and simplistic to me, that's all...

that being said, do you think the study is biased, and if so, in what way? also, could you point to a study that is not funded by partisan groups? what is your take on the findings, do you think there is a real majority for leave?
before you accuse me of strawmanning again, those are genuine questions, i just want to explore the issue. the fact that i consistently maintained my view about no new referendum should tell you that i'm not having ulterior motives...

I don't have an opinion on the study, I just think it's within the realms of possibility that it's biased. No, I don't think there is a majority for leave and probably hasn't been since 2 weeks after the referendum, but I don't think it's particularly relevant.

What jumped out to me upon first viewing and represents the biggest potential for bias in the study is how the voter swing is reported by constituency, when the referendum results were rolled up and reported into regions, i.e. North West England. So if Knowsley switched to remain but other constituencies in the North West became more towards leave or remained unchanged, when it gets rolled up into regional figures the constituency-level swings would be less pronounced as it's a lower proportion of regional votes.

why am i not suprised that fender is trying to sell antifa trash as a source

Why I'm not surprised it's a German who says antifa is trash.
Have your grand parents killed my uncle and auntie, by chance?
Just asking.



This post was edited by Chevaucheur on Aug 12 2018 10:57am

Any news from the reich of Israel ?

why even bother with information you don't like, if you can just call it 'antifa trash'?
simple solutions for simple people. we live in times where people almost seem to be proud of their ignorance...