濮阳东方男科医院很正规濮阳东方医院治疗阳痿好吗,濮阳东方妇科医院技术值得放心,濮阳东方妇科医院治病好不好,濮阳东方妇科医院需要预约吗,濮阳市东方医院很专业,濮阳东方医院看早泄技术先进,濮阳市东方医院地址

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The Los Angeles Chargers are facing backlash on social media after tweeting out a photo.The tweet read in part, “It's #SaluteToService week and we want to see how members of the military #RepTheBolts!” 209

The number of people killed in wildfires burning in California has risen to 50 -- including 48 from northern California's Camp Fire, already the most destructive and deadly blaze in state history.As firefighters battle that fire Wednesday in Butte County north of Sacramento, authorities fear more human remains will be found as searchers comb through rubble and ashes in Paradise, the ravaged town of about 27,000 residents."I want to tell you, though, this is a very, very difficult process," Butte County Sheriff and Coroner Kory L. Honea told reporters. "There's certainly the unfortunate possibility that even after we search an area, once we get people back in there, it's possible that human remains can be found."PHOTOS: Wildfires devastationAuthorities have requested that 100 National Guard troops join cadaver dogs, mobile morgues and anthropology teams in the grim search and recovery of human remains.In Southern California, firefighters still are battling the Woolsey Fire, which so far has left two people dead in Malibu.They've also been fighting a new blaze, the Sierra Fire, in San Bernardino County. It started late Tuesday about 50 miles east of Los Angeles near Rialto and Fontana, and by Wednesday morning had burned 147 acres, though no evacuations have been ordered, the San Bernardino County Fire District said.Fire officials said the Sierra Fire was fanned by the Santa Ana winds -- strong, dry winds that high-pressure systems push from east to west, from the mountains and desert areas down into the Los Angeles area.Winds will be "particularly strong" Wednesday morning but are expected to weaken by evening, the National Weather Service said.Meanwhile in Northern California, forecasters have said the winds fueling the Camp Fire would slowly begin to decrease Wednesday and give firefighters a reprieve. 1842

The most dangerous place for women is the home, according to a new UN study.Out of an estimated 87,000 women killed last year, some 50,000 -- or 58% -- were killed by partners or family members, according to the 2018 report on gender-related killing of women and girls by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).More than a third of the women intentionally killed in 2017 were killed by a current or former partner, and 137 women are killed by family members every day, it said.While the majority of intentional homicide victims are male and killed by strangers, women are far more likely to die at the hands of someone they know, the study showed.UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov said women "continue to pay the highest price as a result of gender inequality, discrimination and negative stereotypes" and that gender-based homicide is a "lethal act on a continuum of gender-based discrimination and abuse."The study, released on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on November 25, looked at homicide data related to gender violence and "femicide," a term understood as a gender-based hate crime perpetrated by men.Globally, Asia was the region with the highest number of women killed by partners or family members last year, at 20,000, followed by Africa (19,000), the Americas (8,000), Europe (3,000) and Oceania (300).However, rates were higher in Africa and the Americas, meaning women faced the greatest risk of being killed by partners or family members in these regions.In Africa, these homicides accounted for 3.1 victims per 100,000 of the female population and in the Americas, the rate was 1.6 victims per 100,000 of the female population -- compared with 0.9 per 100,000 in Asia.Europe showed the lowest rate of gender-based homicide, with 0.7 victims per 100,000 of the female population.While countries have taken various steps to address violence against women and gender-related killings -- including the adoption of special units and more training in the criminal justice system -- the report said there is no sign of a fall in the number of gender-related killings of women and girls worldwide.The total number of female homicide victims appears to have increased since 2012, it said, when the number of women killed by partners or family members was estimated at 48,000 -- or 47% of all female homicide victims.The new study has called for a series of measures to combat the global problem, including coordination between police, the criminal justice system, health and social services, and involving men more in addressing the problem."In order to prevent and tackle gender-related killing of women and girls, men need to be involved in efforts to combat intimate partner violence/family-related homicide and in changing cultural norms that move away from violent masculinity and gender stereotypes," it said. 2892

The Keystone State is living up to its name, as potentially the linchpin in who becomes America’s next president.“Their processes just were never anticipating such an influx,” said Matthew Weil, with the Bipartisan Policy Center.It’s an influx of early absentee and mail-in ballots, in numbers Pennsylvania has never dealt with before. The state received about 2.5 million mail-in ballots, 10 times the number they had in 2016. Yet, counting all of the state’s ballots will take a while.Watch Gov. Tom Wolf provide an update about the state's election results:“In some of the biggest jurisdictions--Philadelphia, Pittsburgh--they just didn't have the experience counting those quickly,” Weil said. “And the fact that the legislature did not give them time before Election Day to count those, even knowing that this was coming, means that most likely we're not going to have great results until Friday.”Among the areas to watch in Pennsylvania: the suburban counties around the state’s two biggest cities, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. That includes Bucks County, which lies just north of Philadelphia.“Counting the ballots is really an uncertain science for us,” said Bob Harvie, Bucks County Board of Elections Chairman.Those mail-in ballots also take longer to count.“There are two envelopes we have to open: the outside envelope and the secrecy envelope,” Harvie said. “So, it's really double the work.”Here in Bucks County alone, they sent out 200,000 mail-in ballots for this election. That’s 10 times the number they did in 2016. And in Bucks County, like everywhere else across Pennsylvania, ballots postmarked on Election Day can still be counted if they’re received through Friday. However, elections officials are preparing for the possibility of a legal challenge involving those ballots.“We do know that there's very likely to be a legal challenge to that claiming that that's not constitutional,” Harvie said. “So, we are going to start segregating any mail we get.”In the end, though, officials in Pennsylvania hope the 2020 election keeps voters confident in the election system.“The people you see here working, you know these are not political appointees,” Harvie said. “They’re county employees, they’re government employees, and so, really, they're they've committed themselves to giving people a fair, accurate, safe election.”It’s an election that doesn’t appear to be over just yet. 2411