Conservatives continue to worship pollster who predicted Romney would beat Obama

[Redfish]

I already explained that. the polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. they are part of the propaganda machine that you fools are taken in by.

lol, sheer nonsense.

no, its fact. ignore at your peril

Then tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

are you really so naïve that you have to ask that? Do you think they are trying to get republicans to vote for Bush in the primaries? WTF do you think they are trying to do?

Damn you libs are dumb.

So, as usual, you can't answer the question. You have NOTHING to support your claim.

I answered it , idiot.

 

[Redfish]

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

Sometimes? Some polls get it mostly right, others don't. Some polls (like the WND one in another thread) are designed to influence opinion. You have to follow their past performance and there are quite a few who get it right often.

And why would anyone care what you believe? You've closed yourself off of the only valuable statistical resource for who is leading in any given race.

I never said that they were not indicators of where the elections may end up. I am only trying to make the point that they are statistically invalid.

and I do realize that all 330,000,000 americans do not vote. Even if you limit the poll to likely voters of 20-30 million, a sample of 1000 is not statistically meaningful.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why then do the polls get almost elections within a few points or less?

I already explained that. the polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. they are part of the propaganda machine that you fools are taken in by.

lol, sheer nonsense.

no, its fact. ignore at your peril

Then tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

are you really so naïve that you have to ask that? Do you think they are trying to get republicans to vote for Bush in the primaries? WTF do you think they are trying to do?

Damn you libs are dumb.

The final polls average in 2008 had Obama winning by 7.6 points and he actually won by 7.3 points and you're claiming that was nothing more than a lucky spin on a roulette wheel.

That's idiocy.

 

[HappyJoy]

Perhaps Redfish shouldn't be starting threads using polls to support his position.

Gingrich: The startling CNN poll on the shutdown - CNN.com | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, sheer nonsense.

no, its fact. ignore at your peril

Then tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

are you really so naïve that you have to ask that? Do you think they are trying to get republicans to vote for Bush in the primaries? WTF do you think they are trying to do?

Damn you libs are dumb.

So, as usual, you can't answer the question. You have NOTHING to support your claim.

I answered it , idiot.

No you didn't.

You're wearing out that dodge btw.

tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Perhaps Redfish shouldn't be starting threads using polls to support his position.

Gingrich: The startling CNN poll on the shutdown - CNN.com | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

He's a moron. That's what morons do. They can't even muster up the smarts to realize that the forum keeps a record.

 

[Redfish]

no, its fact. ignore at your peril

Then tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

are you really so naïve that you have to ask that? Do you think they are trying to get republicans to vote for Bush in the primaries? WTF do you think they are trying to do?

Damn you libs are dumb.

So, as usual, you can't answer the question. You have NOTHING to support your claim.

I answered it , idiot.

No you didn't.

You're wearing out that dodge btw.

tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

GOP voters. got it now, fool?

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

Sometimes? Some polls get it mostly right, others don't. Some polls (like the WND one in another thread) are designed to influence opinion. You have to follow their past performance and there are quite a few who get it right often.

And why would anyone care what you believe? You've closed yourself off of the only valuable statistical resource for who is leading in any given race.

I never said that they were not indicators of where the elections may end up. I am only trying to make the point that they are statistically invalid.

and I do realize that all 330,000,000 americans do not vote. Even if you limit the poll to likely voters of 20-30 million, a sample of 1000 is not statistically meaningful.

How can they be indicators but not statistically valid?

 

[Redfish]

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

Sometimes? Some polls get it mostly right, others don't. Some polls (like the WND one in another thread) are designed to influence opinion. You have to follow their past performance and there are quite a few who get it right often.

And why would anyone care what you believe? You've closed yourself off of the only valuable statistical resource for who is leading in any given race.

I never said that they were not indicators of where the elections may end up. I am only trying to make the point that they are statistically invalid.

and I do realize that all 330,000,000 americans do not vote. Even if you limit the poll to likely voters of 20-30 million, a sample of 1000 is not statistically meaningful.

How can they be indicators but not statistically valid?

Uhhh, I'm not even going to dignify that stupid comment with an answer.

 

[Redfish]

Perhaps Redfish shouldn't be starting threads using polls to support his position.

Gingrich: The startling CNN poll on the shutdown - CNN.com | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

where in that post did I say that that poll was statistically accurate? answer: nowhere.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

Sometimes? Some polls get it mostly right, others don't. Some polls (like the WND one in another thread) are designed to influence opinion. You have to follow their past performance and there are quite a few who get it right often.

And why would anyone care what you believe? You've closed yourself off of the only valuable statistical resource for who is leading in any given race.

I never said that they were not indicators of where the elections may end up. I am only trying to make the point that they are statistically invalid.

and I do realize that all 330,000,000 americans do not vote. Even if you limit the poll to likely voters of 20-30 million, a sample of 1000 is not statistically meaningful.

How can they be indicators but not statistically valid?

Uhhh, I'm not even going to dignify that stupid comment with an answer.

Hey, if you choose not to recognize the statistical significance of multiple polls over time, that's your problem.

 

[HappyJoy]

Perhaps Redfish shouldn't be starting threads using polls to support his position.

Gingrich: The startling CNN poll on the shutdown - CNN.com | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

where in that post did I say that that poll was statistically accurate? answer: nowhere.

Why did you use the poll, aren't they worthless? You can't have it both ways, claim polls are useless when they don't benefit you and then use them when they do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

are you really so naïve that you have to ask that? Do you think they are trying to get republicans to vote for Bush in the primaries? WTF do you think they are trying to do?

Damn you libs are dumb.

So, as usual, you can't answer the question. You have NOTHING to support your claim.

I answered it , idiot.

No you didn't.

You're wearing out that dodge btw.

tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

GOP voters. got it now, fool?

To do what?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but what I see is support for a candidate, not worship. Nothing like the absolutely terrifying crap that Obama got from the left when he first ran and still does to this day.

 

[A Perez]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

Rasmussen fucking up the Senate races, which distinguishes among the sucky ones. And Gallup was so embarrassed that it stopped making polls at all this year.

Excuses are like...well you know

All hail President Romney!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

Rasmussen fucking up the Senate races, which distinguishes among the sucky ones. And Gallup was so embarrassed that it stopped making polls at all this year.

Excuses are like...well you know

All hail President Romney!

You ignored the comment at least three other polls said the same thing. Unless you can respond just shut up already, you're just blabbering to be blabbering

 

[Redfish]

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

Sometimes? Some polls get it mostly right, others don't. Some polls (like the WND one in another thread) are designed to influence opinion. You have to follow their past performance and there are quite a few who get it right often.

And why would anyone care what you believe? You've closed yourself off of the only valuable statistical resource for who is leading in any given race.

I never said that they were not indicators of where the elections may end up. I am only trying to make the point that they are statistically invalid.

and I do realize that all 330,000,000 americans do not vote. Even if you limit the poll to likely voters of 20-30 million, a sample of 1000 is not statistically meaningful.

How can they be indicators but not statistically valid?

Uhhh, I'm not even going to dignify that stupid comment with an answer.

Hey, if you choose not to recognize the statistical significance of multiple polls over time, that's your problem.

multiple polls using different samples and using the same questions might achieve some validity-------------------because the sample would be larger.

 

[Redfish]

Perhaps Redfish shouldn't be starting threads using polls to support his position.

Gingrich: The startling CNN poll on the shutdown - CNN.com | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

where in that post did I say that that poll was statistically accurate? answer: nowhere.

Why did you use the poll, aren't they worthless? You can't have it both ways, claim polls are useless when they don't benefit you and then use them when they do.

That thread was to start a discussion, I never said that the poll was statistically valid.

 

[Redfish]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

Rasmussen fucking up the Senate races, which distinguishes among the sucky ones. And Gallup was so embarrassed that it stopped making polls at all this year.

Excuses are like...well you know

All hail President Romney!

the country would be much better off today if that had happened.

 

[Redfish]

are you really so naïve that you have to ask that? Do you think they are trying to get republicans to vote for Bush in the primaries? WTF do you think they are trying to do?

Damn you libs are dumb.

So, as usual, you can't answer the question. You have NOTHING to support your claim.

I answered it , idiot.

No you didn't.

You're wearing out that dodge btw.

tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

GOP voters. got it now, fool?

To do what?

are you that stupid? Crawl back under your rock.