Thread by @marortoll

Constantly amazed by his logic. A political scientist with a PhD who reasons as he does should be stripped of his doctoral degree. Surveys are based on science because the discipline of statistics is involved. As such, there is the survey design made by
manilatimes.net/2021/07/20/opi…

a statistician or a data analyst. It has to be totally random in order for the results not to be skewed. If skewed then the purpose of the survey is defeated. Not all surveys are correct. Think of Hillary Clinton's pollsters who had her leading by 10 points in the 2016 election.

Election night had Hillary losing to Donald Trump in what was considered a major upset. Last night, I read an article about a statement made by the national group of pollsters in the US saying they made a mistake in their surveys for Congressional races. This is why the

Republicans were able to cut down the majority of the Democrats in 2020. They appear to be headed to victory in this year's midterm election. Bad news for the Biden administration. The problem with Contreras is he lets his hatred of Duterte get in the way of his analysis. He

continues to insist that Duterte has only a voter base of 18% per their survey. But the problem with this is the sample size is only 1,500 out of a possible 60M voters. It doesn't mean that if Duterte ran for Vice-President he would only get 18% of the vote. The same is true with

his fallacious claim with Isko's voter base being at 53%. If the election were held today, would it be guaranteed that Isko would win? Again, surveys are just snapshots to extract information from the electorate. Aside from the science, there is also the gut feel. You want to get

the pulse of the people you talk to the man on the street. You want their palpable opinion, you talk to a taxi driver or a barber. Why? They're the most updated on political issues on account of their jobs having them tuned-in to AM radio to pass their time while doing their work

in the course of a day. Contreras wants his followers to swallow his pronouncements as gospel truth while engaging in credentialism. Tag-diez na nga ang mga political analyst at strategist ngayon. Everyone who is on social media is one because they can't avoid expressing their

opinion. That's what social media is for to begin with. In his case, it appears more to be sour-graping given his history of what he refers to as "critical collaboration." In reality, he's just pissed that he doesn't have the same kind of popularity his fellow DDS have now. In

social media, content is king. It's a question of where you want to position yourself as a pundit. While likes and followers are indicators, what you write about still counts, more so the logic of your argument. What ails Contreras is the same with the opposition; they like to

ram opinions down people's throats. Each individual has the freedom to choose. There is also discernment. No one has the right to force any one to become a believer. You have to sell your ideas in the marketplace. If people buy it, good. If not, then it simply means that your

reading of their sentiments is wrong. It's now up to you to decide how you will position yourself in the market. Respect begets respect. It's fairly obvious that the good professor is afflicted with narcississm. He behaves like a six year old when anyone disagrees with his

opinion. Being a control freak doesn't get you anywhere. As early as October 2016 when Contreras and the other members of what became the DDS bloggers got together, I already foresaw they wouldn't last long enough because each and everyone had a hidden agenda. It would become a

game of one-upmanship. By 2017, they were already at each other's throats. This is what happens when your beliefs aren't based on principles. Contreras' piece today is a reflection exactly of how he thinks.