You're shitting me, right?
You're citing ONLINE POLLS?
Good God.
Everyone knows you can trust online polls. Just ask President Paul.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're shitting me, right?
You're citing ONLINE POLLS?
Good God.
Now that's comprehensive poll research, Sinatra. The only thing they should have done is measured them against who was for or against it in the first place, just to see who was effected more.
Some of those polls had such questions - some did not. They are all informal polls of course, but the trend is clear - Obama's speech did nothing to alter the minds of Americans, and in fact, may have swayed some to go against the plan. His stern directive to require insurance for all or face consequences I know is not playing well with many across the political spectrum.
By "informal" you mean internet polls? Cause everyone knows how reliable those are - especially President Ron Paul.
You're shitting me, right?
You're citing ONLINE POLLS?
Good God.
Everyone knows you can trust online polls. Just ask President Paul.
Some of those polls had such questions - some did not. They are all informal polls of course, but the trend is clear - Obama's speech did nothing to alter the minds of Americans, and in fact, may have swayed some to go against the plan. His stern directive to require insurance for all or face consequences I know is not playing well with many across the political spectrum.
By "informal" you mean internet polls? Cause everyone knows how reliable those are - especially President Ron Paul.
No, informal means it is just not accepted by the pollsters who feed us the normal filtered and augmented crap.![]()
By "informal" you mean internet polls? Cause everyone knows how reliable those are - especially President Ron Paul.
No, informal means it is just not accepted by the pollsters who feed us the normal filtered and augmented crap.![]()
By that you mean accurate (or at least more so than these cited polls), right?
All of the polls he sourced are internet polls.
By "informal" you mean internet polls? Cause everyone knows how reliable those are - especially President Ron Paul.
No, informal means it is just not accepted by the pollsters who feed us the normal filtered and augmented crap.![]()
By that you mean accurate (or at least more so than these cited polls), right?
All of the polls he sourced are internet polls.
Anybody who thinks online polls have any meaning whatsoever is one dumb fuck indeed.
And when did Obama cite an online poll?Anybody who thinks online polls have any meaning whatsoever is one dumb fuck indeed.
So then Obama is a dumb fuck, thanks for admitting it.![]()
PR is an epic failure for writing such garbage. BHO has rolled over the opposition. HRC will pass in the next six weeks.
No, informal means it is just not accepted by the pollsters who feed us the normal filtered and augmented crap.![]()
By that you mean accurate (or at least more so than these cited polls), right?
All of the polls he sourced are internet polls.
Gullible you are. I could recite all the proof that "accepted" polls are just hype and bullshit, but why bother. You didn't even catch one of my points, Sinatra did, but you didn't because you are just blindly following the Obama Borg. The polls are accurate, and the fact that the actual question asked is shown also demonstrates honesty (something your pollsters don't do for a reason). However, unlike the pollsters, they are not claiming that they are perfect. Now, take off your blinders and see something clearly for once, you do realize that if a lot of people changed their minds, then likely more people decided they don't like Obama now than ever before. Do the math yourself for once.
By that you mean accurate (or at least more so than these cited polls), right?
All of the polls he sourced are internet polls.
Gullible you are. I could recite all the proof that "accepted" polls are just hype and bullshit, but why bother. You didn't even catch one of my points, Sinatra did, but you didn't because you are just blindly following the Obama Borg. The polls are accurate, and the fact that the actual question asked is shown also demonstrates honesty (something your pollsters don't do for a reason). However, unlike the pollsters, they are not claiming that they are perfect. Now, take off your blinders and see something clearly for once, you do realize that if a lot of people changed their minds, then likely more people decided they don't like Obama now than ever before. Do the math yourself for once.
I don't think that Obama's speech changed many people's minds, and I'm certainly not suggesting it did. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of using internet polling (where anyone can vote as many times as they'd like) to attempt to prove a point.
I'd also suggest you take a look at my posting history - I'm not a big Obama fan, certainly not a Obama "Borg". I understand the tendency to automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with you can be pigeonholed into "Obama Borg" (It certainly makes it easier to dismiss what someone says without actually having to argue a point). I've also made many posts alluding to my distrust of polling in general.
Posting things like this without knowing what my views are makes you look like quite a fool.
Doesn't matter who does them. Left, right, center...Online polls are meaningless.Right wing hate blog polls don't count.
Something tells me you are smart enough, KK, to understand how statistics and sampling works and you also understand what the term "unscientific" means.It makes me look like I kneejerk, not foolish.
However, any poll has flaws, even those that are considered "accepted". As I said, there is a lot of proof of such if you look for it, but I'm tired of searching the links now so I am not bothering anymore. But meh, if you like listening to polls of any sort that's fine, you just can't accuse one of being inaccurate and not another. The biggest clue, when the actual questions are hidden (like with the "accepted" pollsters), they are lying.
And when did Obama cite an online poll?Anybody who thinks online polls have any meaning whatsoever is one dumb fuck indeed.
So then Obama is a dumb fuck, thanks for admitting it.![]()
Gullible you are. I could recite all the proof that "accepted" polls are just hype and bullshit, but why bother. You didn't even catch one of my points, Sinatra did, but you didn't because you are just blindly following the Obama Borg. The polls are accurate, and the fact that the actual question asked is shown also demonstrates honesty (something your pollsters don't do for a reason). However, unlike the pollsters, they are not claiming that they are perfect. Now, take off your blinders and see something clearly for once, you do realize that if a lot of people changed their minds, then likely more people decided they don't like Obama now than ever before. Do the math yourself for once.
I don't think that Obama's speech changed many people's minds, and I'm certainly not suggesting it did. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of using internet polling (where anyone can vote as many times as they'd like) to attempt to prove a point.
I'd also suggest you take a look at my posting history - I'm not a big Obama fan, certainly not a Obama "Borg". I understand the tendency to automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with you can be pigeonholed into "Obama Borg" (It certainly makes it easier to dismiss what someone says without actually having to argue a point). I've also made many posts alluding to my distrust of polling in general.
Posting things like this without knowing what my views are makes you look like quite a fool.
It makes me look like I kneejerk, not foolish.
However, any poll has flaws, even those that are considered "accepted". As I said, there is a lot of proof of such if you look for it, but I'm tired of searching the links now so I am not bothering anymore. But meh, if you like listening to polls of any sort that's fine, you just can't accuse one of being inaccurate and not another. The biggest clue, when the actual questions are hidden (like with the "accepted" pollsters), they are lying.
Something tells me you are smart enough, KK, to understand how statistics and sampling works and you also understand what the term "unscientific" means.It makes me look like I kneejerk, not foolish.
However, any poll has flaws, even those that are considered "accepted". As I said, there is a lot of proof of such if you look for it, but I'm tired of searching the links now so I am not bothering anymore. But meh, if you like listening to polls of any sort that's fine, you just can't accuse one of being inaccurate and not another. The biggest clue, when the actual questions are hidden (like with the "accepted" pollsters), they are lying.
Please tell me you're not someone who places validity in an online poll/
I mean, really.