Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[Thinker101]

Unlike you, I actually read the back up data on polls. Almost all of them sample 1000 people or less (out of 330,000,000)-------statistically meaningless with such a tiny sample size (source stat 101), they also oversample democrats, big city dwellers, and the people on the west and east coasts.

draw your own conclusions, do the research, if you really care and are not just a partisan parrot.

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

Yea, stop making shit up...that's reserved for liberals.

 

[Faun]

wrong, the polls said she would win the ELECTION. She lost, they either lied or were flawed.

I fully understand how the pollsters manipulate the mathematic laws of statistics. They claim that they create a sample that proportionally represents all of the demographics in a population of 330 million. That is simply impossible and anyone who believes that is naïve.

National polls predict national voting, not electoral voting. Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding on the topic you discuss. State by state polling also did not predict Hillary would win. From memory, I recall the CNN electoral poll was most favorable to Hillary and their last one indicated she still did not have the 270 votes needed to lock up the election. Even then, the state polling accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states. And the 3 they missed were all swing states which were predicted could go either way.

Now, for the 3rd time.... what's your source...?

During the 2016 election, national polls were conducted daily. Final polls showed Hillary leading by 3% with her lead dropping

State polls, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had not been conducted in weeks and did not keep up with recent trends (Comey email release)

So are you now making the claim that the polls said that Hillary would lose? Seriously?

No, I am making the point that the polls lagged the late swing to Trump because of the Comey email bullshit
While national polls showed the swing, state polls were not conducted that close to the election

maybe, but they still showed her winning the election up to Nov 8th.

So Comey cost Hillary the election but today he is a hero of the democrats???????????????? If she had won, she would have fired him just like Trump did, probably sooner. Remember there was an open investigation of her at the time. Would you libs and the media have then screamed "she fired him to stop the investigation"? No, of course not. Because with you on the left its all about politics, not complying with our laws.

The polls, on average, showed Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points....

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

She won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points...

2016 election results: State maps, live updates

The polls were accurate.

They still are. Being the Trump sycophant you are, you try to dispel them for no reason other than they make Trump look bad.

 

[Faun]

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

Yea, stop making shit up...that's reserved for liberals.

Since when?

 

[Thinker101]

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

Yea, stop making shit up...that's reserved for liberals.

Since when?

Since Obama became president.

 

[Faun]

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

Yea, stop making shit up...that's reserved for liberals.

Since when?

Since Obama became president.

Then I guess they learned well from conservatives who have been doing that for as long as there have been conservatives.

 

[Redfish]

Unlike you, I actually read the back up data on polls. Almost all of them sample 1000 people or less (out of 330,000,000)-------statistically meaningless with such a tiny sample size (source stat 101), they also oversample democrats, big city dwellers, and the people on the west and east coasts.

draw your own conclusions, do the research, if you really care and are not just a partisan parrot.

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

 

[Redfish]

National polls predict national voting, not electoral voting. Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding on the topic you discuss. State by state polling also did not predict Hillary would win. From memory, I recall the CNN electoral poll was most favorable to Hillary and their last one indicated she still did not have the 270 votes needed to lock up the election. Even then, the state polling accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states. And the 3 they missed were all swing states which were predicted could go either way.

Now, for the 3rd time.... what's your source...?

During the 2016 election, national polls were conducted daily. Final polls showed Hillary leading by 3% with her lead dropping

State polls, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had not been conducted in weeks and did not keep up with recent trends (Comey email release)

So are you now making the claim that the polls said that Hillary would lose? Seriously?

No, I am making the point that the polls lagged the late swing to Trump because of the Comey email bullshit
While national polls showed the swing, state polls were not conducted that close to the election

maybe, but they still showed her winning the election up to Nov 8th.

So Comey cost Hillary the election but today he is a hero of the democrats???????????????? If she had won, she would have fired him just like Trump did, probably sooner. Remember there was an open investigation of her at the time. Would you libs and the media have then screamed "she fired him to stop the investigation"? No, of course not. Because with you on the left its all about politics, not complying with our laws.

Yes they did
And the totally missed the recent shift in Midwest states

so you now agree that the polls were flawed, back to where we started. You originally claimed that they got it right------remember?

 

[Reasonable]

Analysis: Today’s unemployment number fools us and President Trump, but for different reasons

 

[Redfish]

Unlike you, I actually read the back up data on polls. Almost all of them sample 1000 people or less (out of 330,000,000)-------statistically meaningless with such a tiny sample size (source stat 101), they also oversample democrats, big city dwellers, and the people on the west and east coasts.

draw your own conclusions, do the research, if you really care and are not just a partisan parrot.

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

 

[rightwinger]

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

Please stop talking statistics........you are embarrassing yourself

 

[Redfish]

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

Please stop talking statistics........you are embarrassing yourself

LOL, I have embarrassed you and you are too stupid to realize it. You are a joke. No one on this board takes you seriously. Crawl back under your rock and look for the prophet algore, he will warm you and cuddle you so you wont melt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

 

[NYcarbineer]

During the 2016 election, national polls were conducted daily. Final polls showed Hillary leading by 3% with her lead dropping

State polls, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had not been conducted in weeks and did not keep up with recent trends (Comey email release)

So are you now making the claim that the polls said that Hillary would lose? Seriously?

No, I am making the point that the polls lagged the late swing to Trump because of the Comey email bullshit
While national polls showed the swing, state polls were not conducted that close to the election

maybe, but they still showed her winning the election up to Nov 8th.

So Comey cost Hillary the election but today he is a hero of the democrats???????????????? If she had won, she would have fired him just like Trump did, probably sooner. Remember there was an open investigation of her at the time. Would you libs and the media have then screamed "she fired him to stop the investigation"? No, of course not. Because with you on the left its all about politics, not complying with our laws.

Yes they did
And the totally missed the recent shift in Midwest states

so you now agree that the polls were flawed, back to where we started. You originally claimed that they got it right------remember?

The national polls were within 1 point of the 2016 result. That is not 'meaningless'.

 

[Redfish]

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

 

[Redfish]

So are you now making the claim that the polls said that Hillary would lose? Seriously?

No, I am making the point that the polls lagged the late swing to Trump because of the Comey email bullshit
While national polls showed the swing, state polls were not conducted that close to the election

maybe, but they still showed her winning the election up to Nov 8th.

So Comey cost Hillary the election but today he is a hero of the democrats???????????????? If she had won, she would have fired him just like Trump did, probably sooner. Remember there was an open investigation of her at the time. Would you libs and the media have then screamed "she fired him to stop the investigation"? No, of course not. Because with you on the left its all about politics, not complying with our laws.

Yes they did
And the totally missed the recent shift in Midwest states

so you now agree that the polls were flawed, back to where we started. You originally claimed that they got it right------remember?

The national polls were within 1 point of the 2016 result. That is not 'meaningless'.

already explained many times. creating a poll that comes close to the outcome is not the same as creating a poll that is statistically significant. Math vs propaganda.

 

[rightwinger]

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

Please stop talking statistics........you are embarrassing yourself

LOL, I have embarrassed you and you are too stupid to realize it. You are a joke. No one on this board takes you seriously. Crawl back under your rock and look for the prophet algore, he will warm you and cuddle you so you wont melt.

Self declared victories from a statistical retard

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I am making the point that the polls lagged the late swing to Trump because of the Comey email bullshit
While national polls showed the swing, state polls were not conducted that close to the election

maybe, but they still showed her winning the election up to Nov 8th.

So Comey cost Hillary the election but today he is a hero of the democrats???????????????? If she had won, she would have fired him just like Trump did, probably sooner. Remember there was an open investigation of her at the time. Would you libs and the media have then screamed "she fired him to stop the investigation"? No, of course not. Because with you on the left its all about politics, not complying with our laws.

Yes they did
And the totally missed the recent shift in Midwest states

so you now agree that the polls were flawed, back to where we started. You originally claimed that they got it right------remember?

The national polls were within 1 point of the 2016 result. That is not 'meaningless'.

already explained many times. creating a poll that comes close to the outcome is not the same as creating a poll that is statistically significant. Math vs propaganda.

How can you create a poll that comes close to the outcome if you don't know the outcome?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

The polls said no such thing.

 

[Redfish]

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

Please stop talking statistics........you are embarrassing yourself

LOL, I have embarrassed you and you are too stupid to realize it. You are a joke. No one on this board takes you seriously. Crawl back under your rock and look for the prophet algore, he will warm you and cuddle you so you wont melt.

Self declared victories from a statistical retard

yes, that describes you quite well. thanks for your honesty.

 

[Redfish]

maybe, but they still showed her winning the election up to Nov 8th.

So Comey cost Hillary the election but today he is a hero of the democrats???????????????? If she had won, she would have fired him just like Trump did, probably sooner. Remember there was an open investigation of her at the time. Would you libs and the media have then screamed "she fired him to stop the investigation"? No, of course not. Because with you on the left its all about politics, not complying with our laws.

Yes they did
And the totally missed the recent shift in Midwest states

so you now agree that the polls were flawed, back to where we started. You originally claimed that they got it right------remember?

The national polls were within 1 point of the 2016 result. That is not 'meaningless'.

already explained many times. creating a poll that comes close to the outcome is not the same as creating a poll that is statistically significant. Math vs propaganda.

How can you create a poll that comes close to the outcome if you don't know the outcome?

everyone in the world knew the election would be very close. Anyone could say "I just did a poll and the election of 2016 will be within a 5% margin of victory.

How many times must you be told? the pollsters are paid to influence public opinion by putting out polls that support the goal of the person or group paying them, or their personal goals and desires. You are being played, wake up.