Bernie endorses rape?

[Denny Crane]

Polls are not accurate..they exclude demographics that don't fit their purpose. I just polled to see who was polled and nobody responded...proof right there

You are being just as bad as mags now.

Good grief!

 

[magnifier661]

You are being just as bad as mags now.

Good grief!

Don't ever go FULL MAGS!!!!

 

[riverman]

Because polling is used for stats

You are being just as bad as mags now.

Good grief!

Still no answer to my question...have you answered a poll about this election or filled out a poll concerning it? I don't believe they are truly representative when 1200 people are polled nor do I trust those stats to be accurate..I know you love polls and charts..questioning these things is the american way.

 

[dviss1]

In context, he didn't. With pro Obama spin he did.

He didn't write off 53% that would have elected him in a landslide.

As obvious as the nose on your face.

If you truly think that White Horse prophecy beliving MF has my best interest I have some swampland to sell you.

2 Nephi 5 21-25

21 And he had caused the CURSING to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they WERE WHITE, and EXCEEDINGLY FAIR AND DELIGHTSOME, that they might NOT BE ENTICING unto my people the Lord God did CAUSE A SKIN OF BLACKNESS to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be LOATHSOME unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And CURSED shall be the seed of him that MIXETH WITH THEIR SEED; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And BECAUSE OF THEIR CURSING (skin of blackness) which was upon them they did become an IDLE PEOPLE FULL OF MISCHIEF and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a SCOURGE unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

FUCK MITT ROMNEY...

 

[Denny Crane]

Because polling is used for stats

Still no answer to my question...have you answered a poll about this election or filled out a poll concerning it? I don't believe they are truly representative when 1200 people are polled nor do I trust those stats to be accurate..I know you love polls and charts..questioning these things is the american way.

The math supporting the polling methods is undeniable.

The polls are not 100% accurate. But mathematical proof says a poll of 1200 is accurate to +/- 4%.

Since the 1930s, Gallup has failed to pick the winner twice, and in all cases the result of the poll was within the margin of error of the poll.

I repeat, good grief.

 

[riverman]

Polling doesn't work like that.

If it did, there'd be a massive scandal and no polling firm would be considered legit.

Read this and learn. It even directly addresses why your specific opinion doesn't matter.

http://www.pollingreport.com/ncpp.htm

The Southern Cal dig was made in sarcasm, but apparently that just went unnoticed

 

[Denny Crane]

The Southern Cal dig was made in sarcasm, but apparently that just went unnoticed

I got it, but it's hard to tell when you display ignorance about how polling works.

Dig?

 

[riverman]

The math supporting the polling methods is undeniable.

The polls are not 100% accurate. But mathematical proof says a poll of 1200 is accurate to +/- 4%.

Since the 1930s, Gallup has failed to pick the winner twice, and in all cases the result of the poll was within the margin of error of the poll.

I repeat, good grief.

Have you filled out a poll concerning Trump...for some reason you and mags fail to be able to answer the question. You can isolate my opinion if you like but I can answer the question..I have not

 

[magnifier661]

The Southern Cal dig was made in sarcasm, but apparently that just went unnoticed

Digs only work when it's used properly. Your dog wasn't because it was too silly to take seriously

 

[magnifier661]

Have you filled out a poll concerning Trump...for some reason you and mags fail to be able to answer the question. You can isolate my opinion if you like but I can answer the question..I have not

Holy shit dude... This is beyond funny anymore

 

[riverman]

I got it, but it's hard to tell when you display ignorance about how polling works.

Dig?

N

I got it, but it's hard to tell when you display ignorance about how polling works.

Dig?

Not trusting something doesn't make one ignorant Denny....but if it supports your position to call me ignorant, I'll just let that one be

 

[Denny Crane]

Have you filled out a poll concerning Trump...for some reason you and mags fail to be able to answer the question. You can isolate my opinion if you like but I can answer the question..I have not

I don't have to be polled, though I have been more than once.

Out of 1200 picked at random, at least 12 are Libertarian and represent my views in the poll.

 

[riverman]

Digs only work when it's used properly. Your dog wasn't because it was too silly to take seriously

I don't have a dog and I'm quite serious about that

 

[Denny Crane]

N

Not trusting something doesn't make one ignorant Denny....but if it supports your position to call me ignorant, I'll just let that one be

I said you're ignorant about how polling works. Quite specific.

 

[riverman]

Holy shit dude... This is beyond funny anymore

Glad you're entertained

 

[riverman]

I said you're ignorant about how polling works. Quite specific.

I know how polling works but I don't trust it...what's so hard to understand. You trust it so I guess that makes you feel informed about it..ok

 

[Denny Crane]

I know how polling works but I don't trust it...what's so hard to understand. You trust it so I guess that makes you feel informed about it..ok

I trust the polls are accurate to within +/- 4%.

There's absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/28/margin-of-error-and-election-p/

The math isn't that hard to follow.

 

[riverman]

I trust the polls are accurate to within +/- 4%.

There's absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/28/margin-of-error-and-election-p/

The math isn't that hard to follow.

That would require trusting the people doing the math. Our local library trusted an accountant to do the math for 20 years and found he screwed up the budget by 115 k for his final 4 years..almost killed the library ...he was a trusted public servant.

 

[Hobbesarable]

The Saloon Keeper is back.

You guys certainly know how to keep me entertained!

 

[Denny Crane]

That would require trusting the people doing the math. Our local library trusted an accountant to do the math for 20 years and found he screwed up the budget by 115 k for his final 4 years..almost killed the library ...he was a trusted public servant.

The math has been examined and validated by too many mathematicians to count.

It's not like some secret cabal keepers of the maths.

 

[Natebishop3]

I will never understand how a thread like this can keep going and going and going....

 

[riverman]

The math has been examined and validated by too many mathematicians to count.

It's not like some secret cabal keepers of the maths.

Well you can trust polls and the folks that count the hanging chads..I don't and it's my own view of how stats can be selectively skewed. Do you trust the military to give accurate body counts in times of war? I don't. I know they inflate stats when it suits the needs of politics and public opinion. If you believe Trump is popular because of a nat'l stat taken from 1200 citizens, then their system is doing it's job for you. My opinion counts and I don't think Trump is overwhelmingly popular anymore than I believe the economy is based on documented profits. The untaxed black market in marijuana is never included in economic figures just like my dislike of Trump is not accounted for in the poll. Let me ask you how you know those 12 Libertarian opinions reflect your own views. Blind trust? Do you know how they answered because of how they register to vote?

 

[riverman]

I will never understand how a thread like this can keep going and going and going....

So you add to the post count?

 

[Further]

40+ years ago, Charles Manson ordered murders, it's no big deal now because all is forgiven.

actions are not words. If he said he wanted to do what he did but never took action, then was contrite and spoke against those thought for the past 40 years, yes I would forgive him. Actions are not the same as words.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well you can trust polls and the folks that count the hanging chads..I don't and it's my own view of how stats can be selectively skewed. Do you trust the military to give accurate body counts in times of war? I don't. I know they inflate stats when it suits the needs of politics and public opinion. If you believe Trump is popular because of a nat'l stat taken from 1200 citizens, then their system is doing it's job for you. My opinion counts and I don't think Trump is overwhelmingly popular anymore than I believe the economy is based on documented profits. The untaxed black market in marijuana is never included in economic figures just like my dislike of Trump is not accounted for in the poll. Let me ask you how you know those 12 Libertarian opinions reflect your own views. Blind trust? Do you know how they answered because of how they register to vote?

Good grief.

That's all I can say. You and mags using terrible analogies to not make your points.

I don't think Trump is overwhelmingly popular, either. The polls don't say that. There isn't a better way to determine if he is or not, though, than the polls.

Democrats in the 1990s wanted to do away with the census and use a poll instead. Go figure. They must believe the poll is as accurate.

 

[riverman]

Thank you, you answered part of my question after all that. Truth to me is based on personal value systems that have real impacts on real people, not charted graphs or questionnaires. Here's an analogy to help you understand my point. If I check the local weather report and it says rain, then walk outside and think, the clouds are not low enough for rain, I trust looking at the sky more than a printout from the weatherman. If I want to know how people feel about Trump, I actually go out and talk to locals, relatives or just listen to conversations in a cafe and base my opinion on the majority. Then I log on here and argue with mags...it's pretty simple and whether you agree or not, it's my point

 

[Further]

Well run polls are highly accurate and trustworthy. Just so you understand their limitations, and don't try to overly apply their findings they are excellent barometers of public sentiment. You just have to remember polls are only a snapshot in time. They are not predictive even though we use trends of multiple polls to predict. They are easily manipulated by wording or introducing bias into the poll design. For these reasons we must discount polls that do not adhere to strict polling guidelines and have a history of low-bias polling, and we also need to look at poll trends more than get carried away over the latest greatest numbers to arrive.

I don't doubt that Trump is fairly popular in the republican world right now, but as I said, these only represent snapshots. As more information is introduced, and more debates occur, and more blunders pile up, and more policy positions are elucidated, and so on, I suspect we will see many republicans falling out of their Trump-Crush. But this is just my assessment, far less reliable than the polls to date.

 

[Denny Crane]

Thank you, you answered part of my question after all that. Truth to me is based on personal value systems that have real impacts on real people, not charted graphs or questionnaires. Here's an analogy to help you understand my point. If I check the local weather report and it says rain, then walk outside and think, the clouds are not low enough for rain, I trust looking at the sky more than a printout from the weatherman. If I want to know how people feel about Trump, I actually go out and talk to locals, relatives or just listen to conversations in a cafe and base my opinion on the majority. Then I log on here and argue with mags...it's pretty simple and whether you agree or not, it's my point

It could be raining a mile away from you and for miles and miles.

You are making a silly analogy again. It's like you don't see anyone in your back yard so there aren't any people anywhere. Or if you see two people, there are only two anywhere on the planet.

The truth that is subjective to you is clearly going to be distorted by your biases. Asking a group of people smooths out such biases.

The polls deliberately don't ask only you and a people within a small radius of you their poll questions for good reason.

 

[riverman]

Well run polls are highly accurate and trustworthy. Just so you understand their limitations, and don't try to overly apply their findings they are excellent barometers of public sentiment. You just have to remember polls are only a snapshot in time. They are not predictive even though we use trends of multiple polls to predict. They are easily manipulated by wording or introducing bias into the poll design. For these reasons we must discount polls that do not adhere to strict polling guidelines and have a history of low-bias polling, and we also need to look at poll trends more than get carried away over the latest greatest numbers to arrive.

I don't doubt that Trump is fairly popular in the republican world right now, but as I said, these only represent snapshots. As more information is introduced, and more debates occur, and more blunders pile up, and more policy positions are elucidated, and so on, I suspect we will see many republicans falling out of their Trump-Crush. But this is just my assessment, far less reliable than the polls to date.

Post of the thread!

 

[Denny Crane]

Well run polls are highly accurate and trustworthy. Just so you understand their limitations, and don't try to overly apply their findings they are excellent barometers of public sentiment. You just have to remember polls are only a snapshot in time. They are not predictive even though we use trends of multiple polls to predict. They are easily manipulated by wording or introducing bias into the poll design. For these reasons we must discount polls that do not adhere to strict polling guidelines and have a history of low-bias polling, and we also need to look at poll trends more than get carried away over the latest greatest numbers to arrive.

I don't doubt that Trump is fairly popular in the republican world right now, but as I said, these only represent snapshots. As more information is introduced, and more debates occur, and more blunders pile up, and more policy positions are elucidated, and so on, I suspect we will see many republicans falling out of their Trump-Crush. But this is just my assessment, far less reliable than the polls to date.

The polls say two things about trump that matter to me at this point.

First, he's got roughly 33% popularity among republicans, probably near zero among democrats.

Second, as he's made his "blunders" and so on, he's become more popular. The polls measure him going from sub 10% popularity to by far the most popular among republicans right now. None of those "blunders" or debate performance have decreased his popularity. It's only gotten stronger.

Also, those pundits who made similar predictions as you, all along, have been wrong all along, so far.

FWIW

Again, I'm not at all a Trump supporter. I think he's clearly intelligent and able to talk without a teleprompter, and he's not taking campaign donations. Those things in his favor.