Tweet
-
"You Just Want to Slap The #### Outta Some People" -
Here's some pretty funny stuff:
So......Fox news posts THEIR OWN POLL reflecting our president's unpopularity and the same people who watch Fox News dismiss it as fake.
Pretty funny stuff. No doubt none of these people have a college education, or if they had one, they did not have to take statistics. They all lack a basic understanding of the 'law of large numbers'. Please refer to Example 5 in the link below:
Folks, this is NOT rocket science.Comment
-
Maybe the election really was rigged.Originally posted by shocka khan View PostHere's some pretty funny stuff:
So......Fox news posts THEIR OWN POLL reflecting our president's unpopularity and the same people who watch Fox News dismiss it as fake.
Pretty funny stuff. No doubt none of these people have a college education, or if they had one, they did not have to take statistics. They all lack a basic understanding of the 'law of large numbers'. Please refer to Example 5 in the link below:
Folks, this is NOT rocket science.Comment
-
WWMD? What Would Milo Do? Here, enjoy this old Milo newsletter I dragged out of Breitbart:Originally posted by ShockingButTrue View Post
Oh, and we know what Milo would do, if he could. He would probably find a young boy to molest. I mean, he did say man-boy love ought to be legal, right?
Happy reading!Comment
-
I'm not following your point on this one. Can you clarify what you believe this article articulates and it's significance?Originally posted by shocka khan View PostWWMD? What Would Milo Do? Here, enjoy this old Milo newsletter I dragged out of Breitbart:
Oh, and we know what Milo would do, if he could. He would probably find a young boy to molest. I mean, he did say man-boy love ought to be legal, right?
Happy reading!Livin the dreamComment
-
Rather than a lack of education, I would call this a lack of faith. People no longer have faith in unbiased journalism, and who could blame them?Originally posted by shocka khan View PostHere's some pretty funny stuff:
So......Fox news posts THEIR OWN POLL reflecting our president's unpopularity and the same people who watch Fox News dismiss it as fake.
Pretty funny stuff. No doubt none of these people have a college education, or if they had one, they did not have to take statistics. They all lack a basic understanding of the 'law of large numbers'. Please refer to Example 5 in the link below:
Folks, this is NOT rocket science.Livin the dreamComment
-
And........ People don't trust polls. I don't trust polls and I don't watch Fox. Polls have a built in "margin of error" and too many polls have relied on the outer edges of the "margin of error" to claim that they were accurate. For a year and a half, we were told by the polls that HRC was going to win the election handily. Fox News polls told us that. Day after day. It didn't happen.Originally posted by wufan View Post
I don't buy polls, not from CBS, not from Fox. Polls are bullshit.There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.Comment
-
The polls were right. The predictions were wrong. The polls measure popular support, and overall suggested a Hillary Clinton popular vote lead of 2-3%. Hillary won the popular vote essentially by that amount. The main problem was not the polls, but the people that forgot we don't have a popular vote for President.Originally posted by MoValley John View PostComment
-
Except that the polls are broken down state by state. The polls do, and did predict the election based on both the popular vote and the electoral college. It was all broken down.Originally posted by CBB_Fan View Post
Based on the polls, Clinton was supposed to win both the popular and the electoral vote. In fact, the electoral vote was supposed to be close to a landslide. Based on polls, Clinton was supposed to win Wisconsin, win, Michigan, and more. She didn't. Clinton was supposed to win the tossups, she didn't.
And the popular vote was achieved by Clinton simply from California. Throw out California,and Clinton also loses the popular vote. Essentially, the polls backdoored into being within the margin of error by being grossly incorrect in California. The polls had Clinton winning Ca. but only by roughly 54%. She won California by a whopping 61%. That 7% miss by the polls, in a state the size of Calfifornia, made the polls seem like they were nationally within the margin of error. But polls shouldn't miss a state the size of California by 7%. They did.
Gallup quit doing presidential polls for the simple reason that they, a national leader in polling, determined that they couldn't accurately predict a presidential election. Yet the media and the general public still consumes polls as relevant, factual information. In reality, they are numbers accumulated by bugging someone who accidentally answers the phone and has their dinner interrupted.Last edited by MoValley John; May 29, 2017, 04:21 AM.There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.Comment
-
-
State polls missed on Johnson, not Clinton. If you look at polls of a swing state like Michigan you can see that there were few large, accurate polls done near the election. Those polls had Clinton at ~46%, which was actually less than what she got on election day. The difference is that Johnson and undecided voters broke largely for Trump in the last week or so (though some broke for Clinton, bringing her to 47.5%). In California, the undecided and Johnson voters broke for Clinton (partially due to the election already being over by the time the West coast stopped voting, bringing out the protest vote).Originally posted by MoValley John View PostExcept that the polls are broken down state by state. The polls do, and did predict the election based on both the popular vote and the electoral college. It was all broken down.
Based on the polls, Clinton was supposed to win both the popular and the electoral vote. In fact, the electoral vote was supposed to be close to a landslide. Based on polls, Clinton was supposed to win Wisconsin, win, Michigan, and more. She didn't. Clinton was supposed to win the tossups, she didn't.
And the popular vote was achieved by Clinton simply from California. Throw out California,and Clinton also loses the popular vote. Essentially, the polls backdoored into being within the margin of error by being grossly incorrect in California. The polls had Clinton winning Ca. but only by roughly 54%. She won California by a whopping 61%. That 7% miss by the polls, in a state the size of Calfifornia, made the polls seem like they were nationally within the margin of error. But polls shouldn't miss a state the size of California by 7%. They did.
Gallup quit doing presidential polls for the simple reason that they, a national leader in polling, determined that they couldn't accurately predict a presidential election. Yet the media and the general public still consumes polls as relevant, factual information. In reality, they are numbers accumulated by bugging someone who accidentally answers the phone and has their dinner interrupted.
The real issue making polls seem inaccurate is that winning by .23%, like Trump did in Michigan, is the same as winning by 99.9%. To accurately predict that small of margins pollsters would have to conduct huge surveys within hours of the election. The reason the results differ so widely from the polls is because the process itself creates unrepresentative outcomes where 10,000 votes can swing 16 electoral votes.Comment
-
And you make posts without contexting or attribution, which makes you as bad as you think he is. Just goes to show that lots of people jump to conclusions or try to make points without supporting arguments.Originally posted by seskridgeComment
-
No, you have tunnel vision. I voted for Obama twice. I did not vote for Hillary specifically because of her abuse of the email server and feeble attempts to explain why she could be so contemptuous and arrogant.Originally posted by seskridge
But whatever you want to believe. Unfortunate you don't seem to have the ability to ask some of the people who have been on here for awhile to see what my political views really are.
Have a nice day, I'm done with you.Comment
-
For the purpose of being polite and cordial, I will not address your comment directly, except to say that I have nothing further to discuss with you at this time.Comment
-
Okay, am I the only one that is confused by this seskridge- Khan dust up?There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.Comment
Comment