For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.
An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.
^^ Exactly what I said. Micro-targeting is also generally called the same. But who cares at the end of the day? All these smoking guns you find mean nothing. It's all just normal inner workings of a campaign. Maybe you've learned something new about topics you didn't know about. But otherwise it's all quite mundane.
I've been thinking about all of your posts. I don't recall you ever supporting something or advocating for anything. All your emails seem to be tear downs of someone/something. There's an obscure political term out there called a "Leninist". Are you one of them?
^^^ I would never tear down someone. If by asking questions and having an opinion about observations I have are construed as an attack well I really don't see how that is my problem. Leninist I may be but I never thought of myself as one (now that I just googled that term) I advocate for answers but every time I ask the same question I get multiple answers backed with supporting facts. You tell me who the Leninist is.
^^^ I would never tear down someone. If by asking questions and having an opinion about observations I have are construed as an attack well I really don't see how that is my problem. Leninist I may be but I never thought of myself as one (now that I just googled that term) I advocate for answers but every time I ask the same question I get multiple answers backed with supporting facts. You tell me who the Leninist is.
^^^ I would never tear down someone. If by asking questions and having an opinion about observations I have are construed as an attack well I really don't see how that is my problem. Leninist I may be but I never thought of myself as one (now that I just googled that term) I advocate for answers but every time I ask the same question I get multiple answers backed with supporting facts. You tell me who the Leninist is.
For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.
An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.
Got a source for that there double speak definition or are you claiming that as your original work? Fuck this place has become a cesspool.
JC12345678 is a Leninist? The sun also rises in the west.
For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.
An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.
Got a source for that there double speak definition or are you claiming that as your original work? Fuck this place has become a cesspool.
JC12345678 is a Leninist? The sun also rises in the west.
You are thinking of Leninism. A Leninist is someone who just wants to destroy the system.
After all these posts, I don't know if JC is a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican or anything. I don't recall ever seeing an advocacy of a position, rather criticism of politicians broadly. This is why I ask.
For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.
An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.
Fuck this place has become a cesspool.
JC12345678 is a Leninist?
H2M all you have to do is show your love for Hillary like everyone else on AMT. Once you do that you won't be in the cesspool.
For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.
An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.
Got a source for that there double speak definition or are you claiming that as your original work? Fuck this place has become a cesspool.
JC12345678 is a Leninist? The sun also rises in the west.
You are thinking of Leninism. A Leninist is someone who just wants to destroy the system.
After all these posts, I don't know if JC is a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican or anything. I don't recall ever seeing an advocacy of a position, rather criticism of politicians broadly. This is why I ask.
My issue and the reason for my skepticism is that s/he began this thread from a claim of being neutral, of not taking a side, of providing a "public service." And yet, in the absence of a revolution or outrage, his posts have either been a mix of personal opinion or misrepresentation of the evidence provided, at best, and purposeful partisanship misrepresentation at worst. Most questions go unanswered or are met with snark. Seems to be a disgruntled BernieBro at best and a Trump supporter at worst. Maybe JC12345678 hisself will explain?
For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.
An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.
Got a source for that there double speak definition or are you claiming that as your original work? Fuck this place has become a cesspool.
JC12345678 is a Leninist? The sun also rises in the west.
You are thinking of Leninism. A Leninist is someone who just wants to destroy the system.
After all these posts, I don't know if JC is a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican or anything. I don't recall ever seeing an advocacy of a position, rather criticism of politicians broadly. This is why I ask.
My issue and the reason for my skepticism is that s/he began this thread from a claim of being neutral, of not taking a side, of providing a "public service." And yet, in the absence of a revolution or outrage, his posts have either been a mix of personal opinion or misrepresentation of the evidence provided, at best, and purposeful partisanship misrepresentation at worst. Most questions go unanswered or are met with snark. Seems to be a disgruntled BernieBro at best and a Trump supporter at worst. Maybe JC12345678 hisself will explain?
Distort and distract.
Agreed...or maybe neither. I'm really curious, which is why I'm asking. I'm not picking a fight; it's a serious question.
When the Clintons are questioned about the obvious sketchiness of their foundation, they routinely cite AIDS work. But the AIDS work is carried out by CHAI ("Clinton Health Access Initiative"), a separate organization.
In one angry fax, Ira Magaziner, the head of CHAI, says the Clinton Foundation would have 40% overhead if they left out CHAI from the statistics (see pg.10 of attachment). The Clintons conflate these two organizations and they know it. Here is an email from Podesta where he admits he, "mixed CHAI and CF together" on a television appearance defending the foundation. Tina Flournoy, an aide to Bill Clinton, worried that the foundation was constantly "using CHAI stats." Craig Minassian, an employee of the Clinton Foundation, dismissed those concerns by noting "the HIV/AIDS work hits home in a way that other stats don’t."
But now, with this new email, reveals the true nature of CHAI's work. CHAI contracted with Big Pharma companies for AIDS drugs to be distributed in developing countries. This contract specified that AIDS drugs would be provided for a significant discount to CHAI. Getting the drugs at a large discount acts like a direct donation to CHAI. The Clintons reap all of the PR benefits which they use to defend themselves. Otherwise the Clintons would have no defense when the issue of the Clinton Foundation corruption is raised.
But why is this arrangement beneficial for Big Pharma? They could easily distribute drugs to the developing world themselves. Many pharma companies already have programs where they tightly monitor and control the distribution of drugs (REMS) and programs that allow them to distribute to the less fortunate (Pfizer Rx Assistance Programs). Why then, do they need to go through the Clintons?
Corrupt Bargain
The answer, laid out for the first time in this email, is that the Pharma companies relied on the Clintons to resist efforts to lower the costs of AIDS drugs in the United States, the world's most lucrative drug market. They enable CHAI to do and claim credit for running a massive AIDS drug program, in exchange they expect high drug prices in the United States.
The Clintons get the positive press for running a large drug program with CHAI from the cheap drugs from the companies.
The Pharma companies get a political machine to preserve their ability to fleece the American consumer.
Since the insurance companies mostly pay for these drugs, the American consumer barely notices.
And everyone else, even those without AIDS, just pay higher insurance premiums to offset this expense. The costs are distributed throughout the population via the insurance industry.
Smoking Gun Email
The email is a reaction to "comments President Clinton made on lowering domestic AIDS drugs prices at the World AIDS day event" that must have set off a firestorm within Clinton world. Ira notes that CHAI was "taken by surprise" and "wish[ed] that someone had consulted with us before he made these comments." He explains: "we think that publicly pressuring the US and European AIDS drug companies to lower prices and bringing pressure to allow generic AIDS drugs into the United States will have limited if any success and could seriously jeopardize our negotiations to continually lower prices in poor countries. ...
We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries. If we were going to change our view on this, we should have informed the companies before President Clinton went public with his statement and attempted to negotiate a way for them to participate in and get credit for whatever steps we could have persuaded them to take to help the crisis in the states.
Since President Clinton’s comments were made, we have been contacted by a number of advocacy groups who are now intending to wage a public campaign to bring in generics and lower drug prices. We do not feel we can participate in this without jeopardizing our work around the world. We cannot oppose what they might do, but we also cannot be publicly supporting it either.This campaign will not get started until January, so we have some time to figure out and act upon our own strategy".
Having laid out the damage, Ira turns to mitigation strategies:
"If we do try to do something in this area, we suggest that we approach the innovator companies that can currently sell products in the US with the idea of making donations to help clear the ADAP lists. For a variety of reasons, the companies will likely favor a donation approach rather than one that erodes prices across the board". ...
What reason(s) could there possibly be beyond simple profit maximization?
... I would guess that they would also likely favor a solution that involved their drugs rather than an approach that allowed generic drugs from India to flood the US market at low prices or one that set a precedent of waiving patent laws on drugs. ... We can go to war with the US drug companies if President Clinton would like to do so, but we would not suggest it.
CHAI freely admits there is an implicit agreement with the drug companies not to pressure them to lower domestic prices. Bill Clinton made comments that added pressure. CHAI receives a great amount of positive publicity for their AIDS work abroad, and the comments jeopardize that program. Here, CHAI admits it is in their interests for US AIDS drug prices to remain high, so that they can continue getting credit for keeping them low abroad. But CHAI is not content with simply fleecing American AIDS sufferers. Since CHAI doesn't want pressure on Pharma companies to linger, they propose to torpedo other AIDS advocacy groups by creating a smaller, watered-down domestic program with the Pharma companies before those other advocacy groups begin their assault in January. The Clintons are only out for themselves. In comments on World AIDS day in the subsequent years of 2012 and 2013, Bill says nothing whatsoever about domestic drug prices. If AIDS advocacy groups cannot trust the Clintons not to stab them in the back, how can the American people?
For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.
An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.
Got a source for that there double speak definition or are you claiming that as your original work? Fuck this place has become a cesspool.
JC12345678 is a Leninist? The sun also rises in the west.
You are thinking of Leninism. A Leninist is someone who just wants to destroy the system.
After all these posts, I don't know if JC is a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican or anything. I don't recall ever seeing an advocacy of a position, rather criticism of politicians broadly. This is why I ask.
My issue and the reason for my skepticism is that s/he began this thread from a claim of being neutral, of not taking a side, of providing a "public service." And yet, in the absence of a revolution or outrage, his posts have either been a mix of personal opinion or misrepresentation of the evidence provided, at best, and purposeful partisanship misrepresentation at worst. Most questions go unanswered or are met with snark. Seems to be a disgruntled BernieBro at best and a Trump supporter at worst. Maybe JC12345678 hisself will explain?
Distort and distract.
Agreed...or maybe neither. I'm really curious, which is why I'm asking. I'm not picking a fight; it's a serious question.
Nor am I trying to pick a fight or be a dick. But some on here become incensed and shitty when asked to explain their position, back up their point or provide links and facts to explain or cite their sources. Why should I trust JC12345678's explanation of "Leninist" when it's clear his definition is not his original work?
When the Clintons are questioned about the obvious sketchiness of their foundation, they routinely cite AIDS work. But the AIDS work is carried out by CHAI ("Clinton Health Access Initiative"), a separate organization.
In one angry fax, Ira Magaziner, the head of CHAI, says the Clinton Foundation would have 40% overhead if they left out CHAI from the statistics (see pg.10 of attachment). The Clintons conflate these two organizations and they know it. Here is an email from Podesta where he admits he, "mixed CHAI and CF together" on a television appearance defending the foundation. Tina Flournoy, an aide to Bill Clinton, worried that the foundation was constantly "using CHAI stats." Craig Minassian, an employee of the Clinton Foundation, dismissed those concerns by noting "the HIV/AIDS work hits home in a way that other stats don’t."
But now, with this new email, reveals the true nature of CHAI's work. CHAI contracted with Big Pharma companies for AIDS drugs to be distributed in developing countries. This contract specified that AIDS drugs would be provided for a significant discount to CHAI. Getting the drugs at a large discount acts like a direct donation to CHAI. The Clintons reap all of the PR benefits which they use to defend themselves. Otherwise the Clintons would have no defense when the issue of the Clinton Foundation corruption is raised.
But why is this arrangement beneficial for Big Pharma? They could easily distribute drugs to the developing world themselves. Many pharma companies already have programs where they tightly monitor and control the distribution of drugs (REMS) and programs that allow them to distribute to the less fortunate (Pfizer Rx Assistance Programs). Why then, do they need to go through the Clintons?
Corrupt Bargain
The answer, laid out for the first time in this email, is that the Pharma companies relied on the Clintons to resist efforts to lower the costs of AIDS drugs in the United States, the world's most lucrative drug market. They enable CHAI to do and claim credit for running a massive AIDS drug program, in exchange they expect high drug prices in the United States.
The Clintons get the positive press for running a large drug program with CHAI from the cheap drugs from the companies.
The Pharma companies get a political machine to preserve their ability to fleece the American consumer.
Since the insurance companies mostly pay for these drugs, the American consumer barely notices.
And everyone else, even those without AIDS, just pay higher insurance premiums to offset this expense. The costs are distributed throughout the population via the insurance industry.
Smoking Gun Email
The email is a reaction to "comments President Clinton made on lowering domestic AIDS drugs prices at the World AIDS day event" that must have set off a firestorm within Clinton world. Ira notes that CHAI was "taken by surprise" and "wish[ed] that someone had consulted with us before he made these comments." He explains: "we think that publicly pressuring the US and European AIDS drug companies to lower prices and bringing pressure to allow generic AIDS drugs into the United States will have limited if any success and could seriously jeopardize our negotiations to continually lower prices in poor countries. ...
We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries. If we were going to change our view on this, we should have informed the companies before President Clinton went public with his statement and attempted to negotiate a way for them to participate in and get credit for whatever steps we could have persuaded them to take to help the crisis in the states.
Since President Clinton’s comments were made, we have been contacted by a number of advocacy groups who are now intending to wage a public campaign to bring in generics and lower drug prices. We do not feel we can participate in this without jeopardizing our work around the world. We cannot oppose what they might do, but we also cannot be publicly supporting it either.This campaign will not get started until January, so we have some time to figure out and act upon our own strategy".
Having laid out the damage, Ira turns to mitigation strategies:
"If we do try to do something in this area, we suggest that we approach the innovator companies that can currently sell products in the US with the idea of making donations to help clear the ADAP lists. For a variety of reasons, the companies will likely favor a donation approach rather than one that erodes prices across the board". ...
What reason(s) could there possibly be beyond simple profit maximization?
... I would guess that they would also likely favor a solution that involved their drugs rather than an approach that allowed generic drugs from India to flood the US market at low prices or one that set a precedent of waiving patent laws on drugs. ... We can go to war with the US drug companies if President Clinton would like to do so, but we would not suggest it.
CHAI freely admits there is an implicit agreement with the drug companies not to pressure them to lower domestic prices. Bill Clinton made comments that added pressure. CHAI receives a great amount of positive publicity for their AIDS work abroad, and the comments jeopardize that program. Here, CHAI admits it is in their interests for US AIDS drug prices to remain high, so that they can continue getting credit for keeping them low abroad. But CHAI is not content with simply fleecing American AIDS sufferers. Since CHAI doesn't want pressure on Pharma companies to linger, they propose to torpedo other AIDS advocacy groups by creating a smaller, watered-down domestic program with the Pharma companies before those other advocacy groups begin their assault in January. The Clintons are only out for themselves. In comments on World AIDS day in the subsequent years of 2012 and 2013, Bill says nothing whatsoever about domestic drug prices. If AIDS advocacy groups cannot trust the Clintons not to stab them in the back, how can the American people?
Anyone want to discuss taking money? Always take the money, take the money and run for presz!
Decision is final...we ARE taking it. Just wanted to flag that for everyone. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Dennis Cheng wrote: > For internal planning purposes, it would be helpful to know if we are now > considering adopting a ban on PAC and lobbyist donations. > > On Feb 23, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Robby Mook wrote: > > FYI--not responding. > So we're all on the same page, when I discussed this with our strategy > team a while back we decided that we SHOULD accept lobbyist and PAC since > it's a bit disingenioius not to.
Summarized: Bill Clinton made a speech in 2011 challenging the high price of AIDS medicine worldwide. Bill Clinton did not clear his remarks with his charity the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
CHAI said whoa there Billy, you're pissing off our people in Big Pharma, they might end our discounts for cheap AIDS medicine in the third world. CHAI had an existing agreement with Big Pharma that they wouldn't publicly demand low prices on AIDS medicine in the western world.
CHAI and Clinton Foundation schemed on how to mitigate Bill Clinton's remarks which pissed off Big Pharma and lead to other advocacy groups to plan to push for the import of cheap generics from India into the US and Europe.
CHAI responded with a plan to fend off the advocacy groups. Rather than advocate for low prices, their plan was to create a limited program that only served poor people without insurance, with Big Pharma "donating" drugs. Insurance companies would still pay high prices, which translates down to high premiums and deductibles for those paying insurance.
Wait a minute, because I think I'm agreeing with you here. So let me get this straight. The Governor of Virginia's super PAC put $500k into the state Senate race of a Democratic running for a seat. No, never mind that it was third largest donation made by the superpac. I mean..what's next? Next you're going to tell me that this candidate supports Terry's positions and priorities in the VA legislature... and that she WILL VOTE for those priorities. This is a clear quid pro quo on that level alone.
Wow, so weird... especially coming from HA Goodman who only wrote roughly 60 anti-Clinton screeds during the primary. Strange that the Russian gov't loves Clinton when Putin despises her and blames her for the pro-democracy uprisings in Russia and the Ukraine. Something seems to be amiss with Mr. Goodman's analysis. I think the old saying is..."he can't see the fucking forest for the trees".
Wow, so weird... especially coming from HA Goodman who only wrote roughly 60 anti-Clinton screeds during the primary. Strange that the Russian gov't loves Clinton when Putin despises her and blames her for the pro-democracy uprisings in Russia and the Ukraine. Something seems to be amiss with Mr. Goodman's analysis. I think the old saying is..."he can't see the fucking forest for the trees".
Multiple choice question: Who received $500k from Russian syndicate? Snowden Goodman Assange Arkansas Bill JC29856
Wait a minute, because I think I'm agreeing with you here. So let me get this straight. The Governor of Virginia's super PAC put $500k into the state Senate race of a Democratic running for a seat. No, never mind that it was third largest donation made by the superpac. I mean..what's next? Next you're going to tell me that this candidate supports Terry's positions and priorities in the VA legislature... and that she WILL VOTE for those priorities. This is a clear quid pro quo on that level alone.
"I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," said Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University’s Global Security Initiative, citing Russia’s long history of spreading disinformation.
Experts pointed to the Democratic National Committee email hack that happened earlier this year. Metadata from the stolen and leaked documents showed the hackers had edited documents. For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid, a war studies professor at King’s College London.
A few weeks later, Guccifer 2.0, the hacker believed to have Russian ties, released documents supposedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. But security analysts reviewed the documents and found that they actually came from the DNC hacks, not the foundation. And some of the information was likely fabricated, like a folder conspicuously titled "Pay to Play."
In massive document dumps like the Podesta email leak, the risk of encountering altered documents is heightened because it’s easy to slip them in among thousands of genuine documents, said Susan Hennessey, a Brookings Institution fellow and former lawyer for the National Security Agency.
"It is possible the WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s emails includes forged or altered documents," Hennessey said. "With any large leak, it is wise to proceed with caution and skepticism and verify the authenticity of documents before reporting."
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
Why?
As you say Oversampling is s broad term when it comes to statistics.
What is wrong with sampling once and dealing with the result?
For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.
An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.
I've been thinking about all of your posts. I don't recall you ever supporting something or advocating for anything. All your emails seem to be tear downs of someone/something. There's an obscure political term out there called a "Leninist". Are you one of them?
I would never tear down someone.
If by asking questions and having an opinion about observations I have are construed as an attack well I really don't see how that is my problem.
Leninist I may be but I never thought of myself as one (now that I just googled that term)
I advocate for answers but every time I ask the same question I get multiple answers backed with supporting facts.
You tell me who the Leninist is.
My bad.
JC12345678 is a Leninist? The sun also rises in the west.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
After all these posts, I don't know if JC is a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican or anything. I don't recall ever seeing an advocacy of a position, rather criticism of politicians broadly. This is why I ask.
H2M all you have to do is show your love for Hillary like everyone else on AMT.
Once you do that you won't be in the cesspool.
Distort and distract.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
When the Clintons are questioned about the obvious sketchiness of their foundation, they routinely cite AIDS work. But the AIDS work is carried out by CHAI ("Clinton Health Access Initiative"), a separate organization.
In one angry fax, Ira Magaziner, the head of CHAI, says the Clinton Foundation would have 40% overhead if they left out CHAI from the statistics (see pg.10 of attachment). The Clintons conflate these two organizations and they know it. Here is an email from Podesta where he admits he, "mixed CHAI and CF together" on a television appearance defending the foundation. Tina Flournoy, an aide to Bill Clinton, worried that the foundation was constantly "using CHAI stats." Craig Minassian, an employee of the Clinton Foundation, dismissed those concerns by noting "the HIV/AIDS work hits home in a way that other stats don’t."
But now, with this new email, reveals the true nature of CHAI's work. CHAI contracted with Big Pharma companies for AIDS drugs to be distributed in developing countries. This contract specified that AIDS drugs would be provided for a significant discount to CHAI. Getting the drugs at a large discount acts like a direct donation to CHAI. The Clintons reap all of the PR benefits which they use to defend themselves. Otherwise the Clintons would have no defense when the issue of the Clinton Foundation corruption is raised.
But why is this arrangement beneficial for Big Pharma? They could easily distribute drugs to the developing world themselves. Many pharma companies already have programs where they tightly monitor and control the distribution of drugs (REMS) and programs that allow them to distribute to the less fortunate (Pfizer Rx Assistance Programs). Why then, do they need to go through the Clintons?
Corrupt Bargain
The answer, laid out for the first time in this email, is that the Pharma companies relied on the Clintons to resist efforts to lower the costs of AIDS drugs in the United States, the world's most lucrative drug market. They enable CHAI to do and claim credit for running a massive AIDS drug program, in exchange they expect high drug prices in the United States.
The Clintons get the positive press for running a large drug program with CHAI from the cheap drugs from the companies.
The Pharma companies get a political machine to preserve their ability to fleece the American consumer.
Since the insurance companies mostly pay for these drugs, the American consumer barely notices.
And everyone else, even those without AIDS, just pay higher insurance premiums to offset this expense. The costs are distributed throughout the population via the insurance industry.
Smoking Gun Email
The email is a reaction to "comments President Clinton made on lowering domestic AIDS drugs prices at the World AIDS day event" that must have set off a firestorm within Clinton world. Ira notes that CHAI was "taken by surprise" and "wish[ed] that someone had consulted with us before he made these comments."
He explains:
"we think that publicly pressuring the US and European AIDS drug companies to lower prices and bringing pressure to allow generic AIDS drugs into the United States will have limited if any success and could seriously jeopardize our negotiations to continually lower prices in poor countries. ...
We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries. If we were going to change our view on this, we should have informed the companies before President Clinton went public with his statement and attempted to negotiate a way for them to participate in and get credit for whatever steps we could have persuaded them to take to help the crisis in the states.
Since President Clinton’s comments were made, we have been contacted by a number of advocacy groups who are now intending to wage a public campaign to bring in generics and lower drug prices. We do not feel we can participate in this without jeopardizing our work around the world. We cannot oppose what they might do, but we also cannot be publicly supporting it either.This campaign will not get started until January, so we have some time to figure out and act upon our own strategy".
Having laid out the damage, Ira turns to mitigation strategies:
"If we do try to do something in this area, we suggest that we approach the innovator companies that can currently sell products in the US with the idea of making donations to help clear the ADAP lists. For a variety of reasons, the companies will likely favor a donation approach rather than one that erodes prices across the board". ...
What reason(s) could there possibly be beyond simple profit maximization?
... I would guess that they would also likely favor a solution that involved their drugs rather than an approach that allowed generic drugs from India to flood the US market at low prices or one that set a precedent of waiving patent laws on drugs. ... We can go to war with the US drug companies if President Clinton would like to do so, but we would not suggest it.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24440#efmAZwAcGAePAgkAizAj9
Summary
CHAI freely admits there is an implicit agreement with the drug companies not to pressure them to lower domestic prices. Bill Clinton made comments that added pressure. CHAI receives a great amount of positive publicity for their AIDS work abroad, and the comments jeopardize that program. Here, CHAI admits it is in their interests for US AIDS drug prices to remain high, so that they can continue getting credit for keeping them low abroad. But CHAI is not content with simply fleecing American AIDS sufferers. Since CHAI doesn't want pressure on Pharma companies to linger, they propose to torpedo other AIDS advocacy groups by creating a smaller, watered-down domestic program with the Pharma companies before those other advocacy groups begin their assault in January. The Clintons are only out for themselves. In comments on World AIDS day in the subsequent years of 2012 and 2013, Bill says nothing whatsoever about domestic drug prices. If AIDS advocacy groups cannot trust the Clintons not to stab them in the back, how can the American people?
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/58w7pq/clinton_foundation_schemed_with_big_pharma_to/
i swore i knew everything
Distort and distract.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Red ties!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114
Same script, attack the messenger, claim its fake or edited offer no proof no examples and of course everyone's favorite, blame the Russians.
Always take the money, take the money and run for presz!
Decision is final...we ARE taking it. Just wanted to flag that for everyone. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Dennis Cheng wrote: > For internal planning purposes, it would be helpful to know if we are now > considering adopting a ban on PAC and lobbyist donations. > > On Feb 23, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Robby Mook wrote: > > FYI--not responding. > So we're all on the same page, when I discussed this with our strategy > team a while back we decided that we SHOULD accept lobbyist and PAC since > it's a bit disingenioius not to.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26667
Bill Clinton made a speech in 2011 challenging the high price of AIDS medicine worldwide. Bill Clinton did not clear his remarks with his charity the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
CHAI said whoa there Billy, you're pissing off our people in Big Pharma, they might end our discounts for cheap AIDS medicine in the third world. CHAI had an existing agreement with Big Pharma that they wouldn't publicly demand low prices on AIDS medicine in the western world.
CHAI and Clinton Foundation schemed on how to mitigate Bill Clinton's remarks which pissed off Big Pharma and lead to other advocacy groups to plan to push for the import of cheap generics from India into the US and Europe.
CHAI responded with a plan to fend off the advocacy groups. Rather than advocate for low prices, their plan was to create a limited program that only served poor people without insurance, with Big Pharma "donating" drugs. Insurance companies would still pay high prices, which translates down to high premiums and deductibles for those paying insurance.
lol
Who received $500k from Russian syndicate?
Snowden
Goodman
Assange
Arkansas Bill
JC29856
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/24/so-what-exactly-is-virginia-gov-terry-mcauliffe-being-investigated-for/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/mcauliffe-aided-wife-of-fbi-official-handling-clinton-probe.html
She uses 1 of your favorite words in that one.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana