Is Obama trying to destroy the Democrat party?

Is Obama trying to destroy the Democrat party?


No, Obama is not trying to destroy the Democrat party.

But he managed to do it anyway.

Liberals (in both parties) always do this, and it always surprises them that this is the result. They put excessive liberalism into place, and the American people don't want it. So the American people vote Democrats out of office in droves, and the Democrat party is left with no candidates for President, for Governor, or even for Congress. And so they are out of power for years, until people finally forget that they gained power before by lying, disingenuousness, and making promises they couldn't deliver on.

Liberal Jimmy Carter thought that being nice to foreign oil producers would get them to be nice to the U.S. So they jacked up oil prices and manipulated the market while Carter was waiting for them to start being nice, oil prices soared, they became billionaires, and energy prices tripled. Carter also applied his theories to foreign relations, being nice to middle Eastern ayatollahs and waiting for them to be nice to him, and they attacked and embassy (sound familiar?), took dozens of U.S. citizens as prisoners, and held them until Reagan was inaugurated.

Quasi-liberal George H.W. Bush signed new taxes into law after promising he wouldn't, and signed unconstitutional Federal "gun control" legislation into law. He wound up being one of the few sitting Presidents ever voted out of office during peacetime and expanding economy.

Billary tried to put Socialized Health Care into effect, but made the mistake of writing a book about it and publishing it, thinking the American people would be as happy with their socialistic programs as they were. At the next midterm election, Democrats were booted out of office in record numbers, leaving nothing but a few old, tired also-rans to compete against George W. Bush. Only the Republicans choosing the old, tired Bob Dole to run against Billary's second term, let them get re-elected.

Obama implemented Socialized Medicine II, aka Obamacare by lying about it containing no taxes, reducing costs, and people keeping their doctors. And he tried once again to remake the middle East in his own image, thinking an "Arab Spring" would cause all those governments to start being nice to us. Now terrorists have taken over government after government in the region, killing and destroying thousands and plunging the entire region into chaos and outright war, while a resurgent communist Russia has resumed its decades-old quest to gobble up countries by force while the U.S. does nothing.

At the same time, people working for Obama have broken so many laws, told so many lies, concealed and destroyed so much evidence, and used the power of govt to spy on and target so many of their political opponents, that comparisons to banana republics and Richard Nixon are hitting home, making Nixon look like a Cub Scout by comparison. While Obama insists time and again he didn't know anything about any of it until he read about it later in the newspapers. In two consecutive midterm elections, so many Democrats have been booted out of office as a result, there is literally nobody left to run for President except one of the principal liars, lawbreakers, and evidence-destroyers.

None of them "intended" to destroy their own party with these actions. But that has been the result, every time. Liberal never "intend" for their policies to fail. But they fail anyway, every time. Because unlike conservatism, the basic ideas of big-govt liberalism are completely contrary to human nature. And human nature always wins.

Party politics is a game, nothing more.
No, it is a contest between two different philosophies. One that promotes prosperity freedom and personal responsibility, and one that represses them as we have seen for the last six years. And those opposing philosophies can promote prosperity or destroy it... and take the country with it.

One thing it isn't, is a "game", that we can stop and put away after seeing who wins, with no further repercussions.

Both parties will be around as long as we have voters taking sides. You can't destroy a political party as long as we have a politically divided citizenry.
That's what the leaders of the Whig party thought in the mid 1800s.

Democrats will vote for Democrats, and Republicans will vote for Republicans.
Unless they get so fed up with their own party that they stay home and don't vote, as the Democrats did in 1948, 1980, and 2000; and the Republicans did in 1992, 2008, and 2012, when their party didn't offer what they wanted.

And Democrats will now do the same in 2016.
 
So you're ignoring all the mainstream polls, which were right on the money, and shifting the goalposts to a few exit polls in Ohio to "prove" the polls were wrong.


the point is that polls are statistical bullshit. There is no way the a poll of 1200 people is accurate for 330,000,000. pick up a stat 101 text and look it up.

I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
So you're ignoring all the mainstream polls, which were right on the money, and shifting the goalposts to a few exit polls in Ohio to "prove" the polls were wrong.


the point is that polls are statistical bullshit. There is no way the a poll of 1200 people is accurate for 330,000,000. pick up a stat 101 text and look it up.

I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

You had quite a different attitude when you liked the results of a poll:

Proof Liberals Believe Blacks Are Inferior US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
So you're ignoring all the mainstream polls, which were right on the money, and shifting the goalposts to a few exit polls in Ohio to "prove" the polls were wrong.


the point is that polls are statistical bullshit. There is no way the a poll of 1200 people is accurate for 330,000,000. pick up a stat 101 text and look it up.

I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
So you're ignoring all the mainstream polls, which were right on the money, and shifting the goalposts to a few exit polls in Ohio to "prove" the polls were wrong.


the point is that polls are statistical bullshit. There is no way the a poll of 1200 people is accurate for 330,000,000. pick up a stat 101 text and look it up.

I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.
 
I am a Democrat

I belong to the Democratic Party
This reminds me of stories I've heard about Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

Apparently they introduce every speaker by having him stand up and say, "Hi, I'm Jimmy, and I'm an alcoholic".

It's to remind him and everyone else there, just how low he started, and still remains.

Is the Democrat party doing that now?
 
the point is that polls are statistical bullshit. There is no way the a poll of 1200 people is accurate for 330,000,000. pick up a stat 101 text and look it up.

I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
the point is that polls are statistical bullshit. There is no way the a poll of 1200 people is accurate for 330,000,000. pick up a stat 101 text and look it up.

I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

You had quite a different attitude when you liked the results of a poll:

Proof Liberals Believe Blacks Are Inferior US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


show me where I ever said that that poll was statistically accurate.
 
the point is that polls are statistical bullshit. There is no way the a poll of 1200 people is accurate for 330,000,000. pick up a stat 101 text and look it up.

I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
the point is that polls are statistical bullshit. There is no way the a poll of 1200 people is accurate for 330,000,000. pick up a stat 101 text and look it up.

I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.
 
I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this
 
stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this


no I'm not. research it. what I said is exactly mathematically correct. what I said in red above is exactly what the pollsters do.
 
Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this


no I'm not. research it. what I said is exactly mathematically correct. what I said in red above is exactly what the pollsters do.

I was a math major and I am a Six Sigma Blackbelt. You can Google what that means if you don't know. I don't have to research what I am an expert in.

I am not saying 5% is too high. I am saying there is no general answer to the sample size required. There are a lot of factors. It could be far lower, it could be higher. I already listed a bunch of factors that drive that and even those are just basics. From the data stated, there is no possible way to determine what sample size is required.

And for the first time I believe I ever said this, NYCarbineer is right on one thing. Seventeen million is definitely not necessary to sample the US political opinions with a reasonable margin of error and any serious attempt to gather a representative sample
 
Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this


no I'm not. research it. what I said is exactly mathematically correct. what I said in red above is exactly what the pollsters do.

If 1000 person, 2000 person polls in a population of millions were meaningless, which is what you claimed,

then final election polls would be no closer to the actual results than a random selection of numbers.

We KNOW that is false.
 
I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
I don't agree with that either. Polling cannot be perfect. It's diverse country. How do you get a perfectly random sample? How do you know who will follow up with actually voting? How do you phrase the question so you don't skew the results? How do you ensure the pollsters don't influence the results? Very few people are completely politically unbiased.

However, they do show trends and provide information. To call them "statistical bullshit" isn't right, but you can't take them as gospel either.


stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

Again...

...then explain with specifics why the final election poll averages, for president, which comprise at most 10,000 polled,

as opposed to 17 million,

why are they consistently within a few percentage points of the actual results?
 
all of
all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this


no I'm not. research it. what I said is exactly mathematically correct. what I said in red above is exactly what the pollsters do.

I was a math major and I am a Six Sigma Blackbelt. You can Google what that means if you don't know. I don't have to research what I am an expert in.

I am not saying 5% is too high. I am saying there is no general answer to the sample size required. There are a lot of factors. It could be far lower, it could be higher. I already listed a bunch of factors that drive that and even those are just basics. From the data stated, there is no possible way to determine what sample size is required.

And for the first time I believe I ever said this, NYCarbineer is right on one thing. Seventeen million is definitely not necessary to sample the US political opinions with a reasonable margin of error and any serious attempt to gather a representative sample


Yes, I know what math major and six sigma mean. I suspect that I had more college level math than you did but thats really of no significance here (I do have an MBA from Harvard). The rules of statistical analysis are not subject to political manipulations.

5% is the rule for a representative sample but it can be raised or lowered based on the mix within the total population. The demographics of 330,000,000 americans may call for a larger or smaller sample, but 1000 people will never be statistically valid no matter how the pollsters manipulate the sample.'

the fact is that political polling in the USA is designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. We can give credence to polls if we choose, but we are naive if we think they are statistically pure.
 
stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
stat 101 says that a sample of 1200 out of a population of 330,000,000 is meaningless. I don't care how carefully they select that sample. its meaningless.

Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

Again...

...then explain with specifics why the final election poll averages, for president, which comprise at most 10,000 polled,

as opposed to 17 million,

why are they consistently within a few percentage points of the actual results?


all that says is that the pollsters are pretty good at manipulating the sample. Although some of them are not, like the ones who predicted a Romney landslide (Dick Morris).
 
all of
all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this


no I'm not. research it. what I said is exactly mathematically correct. what I said in red above is exactly what the pollsters do.

If 1000 person, 2000 person polls in a population of millions were meaningless, which is what you claimed,

then final election polls would be no closer to the actual results than a random selection of numbers.

We KNOW that is false.


I said it was mathematicallly meaningless, and it is.
 
Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this


no I'm not. research it. what I said is exactly mathematically correct. what I said in red above is exactly what the pollsters do.

Why do you refuse to provide one iota of credible evidence to support your claims?
 
Cite a statistics textbook that says that.


all of
Cite a statistics textbook that says that.

all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

Again...

...then explain with specifics why the final election poll averages, for president, which comprise at most 10,000 polled,

as opposed to 17 million,

why are they consistently within a few percentage points of the actual results?


all that says is that the pollsters are pretty good at manipulating the sample. Although some of them are not, like the ones who predicted a Romney landslide (Dick Morris).

No. What it says is you are wrong.
 
5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this


no I'm not. research it. what I said is exactly mathematically correct. what I said in red above is exactly what the pollsters do.

If 1000 person, 2000 person polls in a population of millions were meaningless, which is what you claimed,

then final election polls would be no closer to the actual results than a random selection of numbers.

We KNOW that is false.


I said it was mathematicallly meaningless, and it is.

It cannot possibly be 'mathematically meaningless' if it is FAR more accurate than a random selection.

You're effectively claiming that a 1000 person presidential election poll is no more accurate than if we put every percentage point from 0 to 100 in a hat,

and drew out one for Obama and one for Romney,

and posted that.
 
all of
all of them. go check one out and look up "representative sample". It will tell you that for a sample to be relevant it must be at least 5% of the total population.

the pollsters try to get around this mathmatical fact by claiming to pick a sample the includes all possible political factions, but that too is bullshit.

5% of the US population is 17 million.

Idiot.


give the boy a prize. he can do some basic math. Yes, 17 million is what would be required for a statistically accurate representative sample, and yes, a poll of 17 million would be virtually impossible to do.

So the pollsters play little games and claim that they structure their 1000 person polls to include every possible demographic within the same ratios as they appear in the total population. Its bullshit, but if you choose to buy into the bullshit, go right ahead.

I love ya man, but you are wrong on this


no I'm not. research it. what I said is exactly mathematically correct. what I said in red above is exactly what the pollsters do.

Why do you refuse to provide one iota of credible evidence to support your claims?


look dude, go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook. Look up representative sample. Then read the small print that follows every poll explaining the sample size and how the sample was generated. Do your own research. I am not here to be your teacher.
 

Forum List

Back
Top