CNN forced to dismiss its own poll after huge majority register positive reaction to sotu

[MindWars]

Watch: CNN Forced To Dismiss Its Own Poll After Huge Majority Register Positive Reaction To SOTU
CNN scrambled to conduct damage control after a large majority registered a ‘very positive’ reaction to President Trump’s State Of The Union Address.


---------------------------------------------------
And sheep can't figure out why we tell them their stupid. You can't get how you are lied to to keep you dumbed down and supporting the very idiots that do nothing for you, the black community etc. They must make the weak minds believe the left is winning, the left is this or that and weak minds believe it every time...

 

[Moonglow]

I always like to see people trying to assert a point from .00003% of the population..

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I always like to see people trying to assert a point from .00003% of the population..

The same .00003% that voted for Hitlery? Guess some liberals have been misguided and are moving more towards President Trump and his Make America Great Again policies.. Remember kiddies, CNN is FAKE NEWS and only liberals watch it. While the intelligent people watch Fox News. Bwaaaahhhhhaaaaahhhaaaaa...You libtards are soooo funny...

 

[Moonglow]

I always like to see people trying to assert a point from .00003% of the population..

The same .00003% that voted for Hitlery? Guess some liberals have been misguided and are moving more towards President Trump and his Make America Great Again policies.. Remember kiddies, CNN is FAKE NEWS and only liberals watch it. While the intelligent people watch Fox News. Bwaaaahhhhhaaaaahhhaaaaa...You libtards are soooo funny...

I don't watch TV at all, it's a waste of time..I have no cable and no satellite....So the joke's on you Negative Nelly...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I always like to see people trying to assert a point from .00003% of the population..

The same .00003% that voted for Hitlery? Guess some liberals have been misguided and are moving more towards President Trump and his Make America Great Again policies.. Remember kiddies, CNN is FAKE NEWS and only liberals watch it. While the intelligent people watch Fox News. Bwaaaahhhhhaaaaahhhaaaaa...You libtards are soooo funny...

I don't watch TV at all, it's a waste of time..I have no cable and no satellite....So the joke's on you Negative Nelly...

Just because you cant afford a TV doesn't mean the rest of the liberals who watch CNN cant. Again, your statement about .00003% still means that is liberals who like what President Trump said, and you once again, wont recognize that FACT...Time again for the liberal thinking.

 

[MindWars]

Wait until this bs comes out LOL
Qanon Decode Multiple Posts Mon Tues Jan 29 & 30 Vers 15.0 Narrative Shifts completed Jan. 31, 2018 JEROME CORSI | Federal Bureau Of Investigation | Wiki Leaks

and the DNC. The conspiracyultimately reached President Obama inthe White House at the head of thecabal.
Once the “Nunes Memo” is read by theAmerican people, the “Russiancollusion” narrative against President
Trump will collapse, to be replaced bythe realization Hillary and Obama, aswell as their many co-conspirators needto be investigated and prosecuted. Nation on alertFiring RR = block MuellerFiring RR = set up to firing MuellerFiring RR = Red line.
With the “Nunes Memo” made public,
the nation will go on alert
–
an alertthat will allow President Trump todeclare a state of emergency that wouldallow him to evoke military powersleading possibly to a declaration ofmartial law.The firing of Rod Rosenstein at the FBIwill block Special Counsel RobertMueller from continuing hisinvestigation of President Trump andthe Trump campaign.The firing of Rod Rosenstein at the FBI

 

[Silent Warrior]

I think that Dems have a lot of damage control to do after failing to acknowledge the statement of low black unemployment and the statement concerning disabled veterans. Both made the party look terrible in the eyes of the general public. Basically their stance has been boiled down to "hate Trump," and nothing substantial to counter him.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Fake News Eats Itself Alive!
Film at 11.

CNN Discredits Own Poll Showing Overwhelming Positive Reaction to SOTU

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Does anyone have the ratings on the State of the Union v. the recent Grammy's?

 

[Godboy]

InfoWars? I'd like to believe it's true, but i don't believe a god damn thing they say. Find a better source or go fuck yourself, weirdo.

 

[Ame®icano]

I always like to see people trying to assert a point from .00003% of the population..

The same .00003% that voted for Hitlery? Guess some liberals have been misguided and are moving more towards President Trump and his Make America Great Again policies.. Remember kiddies, CNN is FAKE NEWS and only liberals watch it. While the intelligent people watch Fox News. Bwaaaahhhhhaaaaahhhaaaaa...You libtards are soooo funny...

Remember, only the "educated" watch CNN and vote for Democrats.

 

[saveliberty]

Wait...polls can be skewed?

Hey CNN, in a scientifically based poll you make sure it is representative of the nation. Try it once, see what you think....

 

[Moonglow]

I always like to see people trying to assert a point from .00003% of the population..

The same .00003% that voted for Hitlery? Guess some liberals have been misguided and are moving more towards President Trump and his Make America Great Again policies.. Remember kiddies, CNN is FAKE NEWS and only liberals watch it. While the intelligent people watch Fox News. Bwaaaahhhhhaaaaahhhaaaaa...You libtards are soooo funny...

Remember, only the "educated" watch CNN and vote for Democrats.

I was burned out from them during Desert Storm...

 

[Rambunctious]

CNN is a joke...a big fucking joke always has been and always will be a big joke...

 

[MindWars]

Watch: CNN Forced To Dismiss Its Own Poll After Huge Majority Register Positive Reaction To SOTU
CNN scrambled to conduct damage control after a large majority registered a ‘very positive’ reaction to President Trump’s State Of The Union Address.


---------------------------------------------------
And sheep can't figure out why we tell them their stupid. You can't get how you are lied to to keep you dumbed down and supporting the very idiots that do nothing for you, the black community etc. They must make the weak minds believe the left is winning, the left is this or that and weak minds believe it every time...

 

[Decus]

Fake News Eats Itself Alive!
Film at 11.

CNN Discredits Own Poll Showing Overwhelming Positive Reaction to SOTU

I watched the linked video of the CNN broadcast. The spin they put on the positive reaction to the SOTU is really amazing. I never saw any mention during the previous administration of a similar reasoning for positive poll numbers.

Hard to believe this isn't viewed by all as partisan reporting.

.

 

[KeiserC]

Kind of surprised that CNN didn't scoop up Frank Luntz given his 2015 spat with Trump... Kind of miss not seeing the Luntz Charade... Where is he in the TV realm? All I can find is a conciliatory / fawning tweet...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Title of the thread to which I initially responded (Weatherman2020 created it):

CNN Discredits Own Poll Showing Overwhelming Positive Reaction to SOTU

That thread got merged into this one:

CNN forced to dismiss its own poll after huge majority register positive reaction to sotu

Do you truly not know the difference between "discrediting" a poll and "qualifying" or stating the limit of its scope/applicability?

• Discredit a poll --> To discredit a poll is to show that either the poll itself or a claim it makes is unsound or uncogent. The only way to discredit a poll is to show there are material flaws in its methodology. One can show two general types of failings:
  • Conclusive/inferential failings --> Given the poll's methodology, the claim(s) the poll makes does not follow from the nature and/or extent of the poll's questions or people surveyed.
    • Note: it is very possible, for multi-question polls, that one assertion such polls make be invalid and others they make be valid.
  • Premise failings --> The poll's methodology is invalid in its own right, in which case, it doesn't matter what the poll asserts.
• Qualify a poll --> To qualify a poll is to state, based on the poll's methodology what be the limits of inferences one can validly draw from the poll's findings/results.

While the image CNN depicted of it's poll obviated the absolute need for Chalian and Blitzer to qualify the poll's results/findings, they chose to do so. Were I to speculate on why they did so, I'd say it's because they know the poll methodology -- being an "instant" poll -- does not adjust for imbalances in the political persuasion among the speech's viewer population, thus the poll's sample. It's not surprising that an "instant" poll doesn't thus weight responses so as to adjust for sample composition imbalances with regard to the distribution of political persuasions among the citizenry.

• Chalian: "It's not representative of the country overall it is a poll of people who watched the speech."
• Blitzer: "We're now getting the first results of our instant poll of people who actually watched the President's speech."

​

Take me for example. I didn't watch the speech; I read the transcript of it. Because I didn't watch the speech, I would not be eligible to respond to the poll questions posed to watchers of the speech, and neither would anyone else who didn't watch the speech.

A very reasonable question to ask is: "Is the poll indicative of the citizenry's reaction to Trump's speech?" To put the question differently: "How well do the poll results align with the views of people who "consumed" the speech in some way other than watching it?"

Insofar as the poll only queried people who watched it and not people who read it, there's no way to know the answer to that question because the poll's surveying methodology wasn't developed to answer that question. (Obviously, people who neither read nor watched nor listened to the speech have no valid reaction to the speech that merits being shared; one cannot react to that which one did not experience.) For a poll to answer that question, its developers must:

• Create and execute a random poll. [CNN's poll may have been random with regard to SOTU speech watchers, but it most assuredly was not random with regard to the citizenry who read, heard and/or watched Trump's SOTU speech. It's not because the only people queried were speech watchers.]
• Know the distribution of political persuasions among the citizenry.
• Know the political persuasion of each poll respondent.
• Query enough people for the poll to have a high degree of representational faithfulness.
  
  
  
  
• Weight the poll responses to account for there being more poll respondents of a given political persuasion than is found in the population as a whole.
  • Weighting of responses in the Consumer Survey: Alternative approaches – Effects on variance and tracking performance of the Consumer Confidence Indicator
    
  • Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling

Pew provides a general overview of it's methodology here -- Sampling -- and in any given study, it details the specifics of its methodlogy used for that particular study. I don't know how or where CNN (or its polling partners -- CNN itself rarely executes the polls; most of the time, it contracts a polling firm to do it and one term of the contract is that the poll results belong to CNN) discloses its polling methology. (I suggest contacting CNN and simply asking them for it or asking that they point one to it if it's on the Internet.)

From the article:

Chalian was quick to point out that more Republicans were probably watching than Democrats. “So it is definitely an audience that skews a little bit more towards Republicans than Democrats in the Obama years it was the reverse.

I don't know what basis Chalian has for asserting that when a Democratic POTUS delivers as SOTU, more Democrats than Republicans watch the speech. I went to a get together last night. The folks there and whom I know to be Democrats didn't pay much attention to the speech; the Republicans there seemed to periodically "zone in" on parts of it. Based on that, along with the fact that some Democrats announced they'd boycott the speech, Chalian's assertion that the population of speech watches includes materially more Republicans than Democrats seems plausible.

 

[Weatherman2020]

CNN Discredits Own Poll Showing Overwhelming Positive Reaction to SOTU

Do you truly not know the difference between "discrediting" a poll and "qualifying" or stating the limit of its scope/applicability?

• Discredit a poll --> To discredit a poll is to show that either the poll itself or a claim it makes is unsound or uncogent. The only way to discredit a poll is to show there are material flaws in its methodology. One can show two general types of failings:
  • Conclusive/inferential failings --> Given the poll's methodology, the claim(s) the poll makes does not follow from the nature and/or extent of the poll's questions or people surveyed.
    • Note: it is very possible, for multi-question polls, that one assertion such polls make be invalid and others they make be valid.
  • Premise failings --> The poll's methodology is invalid in its own right, in which case, it doesn't matter what the poll asserts.
• Qualify a poll --> To qualify a poll is to state, based on the poll's methodology what be the limits of inferences one can validly draw from the poll's findings/results.

While the image CNN depicted of it's poll obviated the absolute need for Chalian and Blitzer to qualify the poll's results/findings, they chose to do so. Were I to speculate on why they did so, I'd say it's because they know the poll methodology -- being an "instant" poll -- does not adjust for imbalances in the political persuasion among the speech's viewer population, thus the poll's sample. It's not surprising that an "instant" poll doesn't thus weight responses so as to adjust for sample composition imbalances with regard to the distribution of political persuasions among the citizenry.

• Chalian: "It's not representative of the country overall it is a poll of people who watched the speech."
• Blitzer: "We're now getting the first results of our instant poll of people who actually watched the President's speech."

​

Take me for example. I didn't watch the speech; I read the transcript of it. Because I didn't watch the speech, I would not be eligible to respond to the poll questions posed to watchers of the speech, and neither would anyone else who didn't watch the speech.

A very reasonable question to ask is: "Is the poll indicative of the citizenry's reaction to Trump's speech?" To put the question differently: "How well do the poll results align with the views of people who "consumed" the speech in some way other than watching it?"

Insofar as the poll only queried people who watched it and not people who read it, there's no way to know the answer to that question because the poll's surveying methodology wasn't developed to answer that question. (Obviously, people who neither read nor watched nor listened to the speech have no valid reaction to the speech that merits being shared; one cannot react to that which one did not experience.) For a poll to answer that question, its developers must:

• Create and execute a random poll. [CNN's poll may have been random with regard to SOTU speech watchers, but it most assuredly was not random with regard to the citizenry who read, heard and/or watched Trump's SOTU speech. It's not because the only people queried were speech watchers.]
• Know the distribution of political persuasions among the citizenry.
• Know the political persuasion of each poll respondent.
• Query enough people for the poll to have a high degree of representational faithfulness.
  
  
  
  
• Weight the poll responses to account for there being more poll respondents of a given political persuasion than is found in the population as a whole.
  • Weighting of responses in the Consumer Survey: Alternative approaches – Effects on variance and tracking performance of the Consumer Confidence Indicator
    
  • Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling

Pew provides a general overview of it's methodology here -- Sampling -- and in any given study, it details the specifics of its methodlogy used for that particular study. I don't know how or where CNN (or its polling partners -- CNN itself rarely executes the polls; most of the time, it contracts a polling firm to do it and one term of the contract is that the poll results belong to CNN) discloses its polling methology. (I suggest contacting CNN and simply asking them for it or asking that they point one to it if it's on the Internet.)

From the article:

Chalian was quick to point out that more Republicans were probably watching than Democrats. “So it is definitely an audience that skews a little bit more towards Republicans than Democrats in the Obama years it was the reverse.

I don't know what basis Chalian has for asserting that when a Democratic POTUS delivers as SOTU, more Democrats than Republicans watch the speech. I went to a get together last night. The folks there and whom I know to be Democrats didn't pay much attention to the speech; the Republicans there seemed to periodically "zone in" on parts of it. Based on that, along with the fact that some Democrats announced they'd boycott the speech, Chalian's assertion that the population of speech watches includes materially more Republicans than Democrats seems plausible.

Good to see you got your Soros talking points email to address the CNN bias.

They forgot to include all the times CNN “qualified” its polls of Obama having good results.

Oh wait. It never happened.

Never mind.

 

[usmbguest5318]

CNN Discredits Own Poll Showing Overwhelming Positive Reaction to SOTU

Do you truly not know the difference between "discrediting" a poll and "qualifying" or stating the limit of its scope/applicability?

• Discredit a poll --> To discredit a poll is to show that either the poll itself or a claim it makes is unsound or uncogent. The only way to discredit a poll is to show there are material flaws in its methodology. One can show two general types of failings:
  • Conclusive/inferential failings --> Given the poll's methodology, the claim(s) the poll makes does not follow from the nature and/or extent of the poll's questions or people surveyed.
    • Note: it is very possible, for multi-question polls, that one assertion such polls make be invalid and others they make be valid.
  • Premise failings --> The poll's methodology is invalid in its own right, in which case, it doesn't matter what the poll asserts.
• Qualify a poll --> To qualify a poll is to state, based on the poll's methodology what be the limits of inferences one can validly draw from the poll's findings/results.

While the image CNN depicted of it's poll obviated the absolute need for Chalian and Blitzer to qualify the poll's results/findings, they chose to do so. Were I to speculate on why they did so, I'd say it's because they know the poll methodology -- being an "instant" poll -- does not adjust for imbalances in the political persuasion among the speech's viewer population, thus the poll's sample. It's not surprising that an "instant" poll doesn't thus weight responses so as to adjust for sample composition imbalances with regard to the distribution of political persuasions among the citizenry.

• Chalian: "It's not representative of the country overall it is a poll of people who watched the speech."
• Blitzer: "We're now getting the first results of our instant poll of people who actually watched the President's speech."

​

Take me for example. I didn't watch the speech; I read the transcript of it. Because I didn't watch the speech, I would not be eligible to respond to the poll questions posed to watchers of the speech, and neither would anyone else who didn't watch the speech.

A very reasonable question to ask is: "Is the poll indicative of the citizenry's reaction to Trump's speech?" To put the question differently: "How well do the poll results align with the views of people who "consumed" the speech in some way other than watching it?"

Insofar as the poll only queried people who watched it and not people who read it, there's no way to know the answer to that question because the poll's surveying methodology wasn't developed to answer that question. (Obviously, people who neither read nor watched nor listened to the speech have no valid reaction to the speech that merits being shared; one cannot react to that which one did not experience.) For a poll to answer that question, its developers must:

• Create and execute a random poll. [CNN's poll may have been random with regard to SOTU speech watchers, but it most assuredly was not random with regard to the citizenry who read, heard and/or watched Trump's SOTU speech. It's not because the only people queried were speech watchers.]
• Know the distribution of political persuasions among the citizenry.
• Know the political persuasion of each poll respondent.
• Query enough people for the poll to have a high degree of representational faithfulness.
  
  
  
  
• Weight the poll responses to account for there being more poll respondents of a given political persuasion than is found in the population as a whole.
  • Weighting of responses in the Consumer Survey: Alternative approaches – Effects on variance and tracking performance of the Consumer Confidence Indicator
    
  • Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling

Pew provides a general overview of it's methodology here -- Sampling -- and in any given study, it details the specifics of its methodlogy used for that particular study. I don't know how or where CNN (or its polling partners -- CNN itself rarely executes the polls; most of the time, it contracts a polling firm to do it and one term of the contract is that the poll results belong to CNN) discloses its polling methology. (I suggest contacting CNN and simply asking them for it or asking that they point one to it if it's on the Internet.)

From the article:

Chalian was quick to point out that more Republicans were probably watching than Democrats. “So it is definitely an audience that skews a little bit more towards Republicans than Democrats in the Obama years it was the reverse.

I don't know what basis Chalian has for asserting that when a Democratic POTUS delivers as SOTU, more Democrats than Republicans watch the speech. I went to a get together last night. The folks there and whom I know to be Democrats didn't pay much attention to the speech; the Republicans there seemed to periodically "zone in" on parts of it. Based on that, along with the fact that some Democrats announced they'd boycott the speech, Chalian's assertion that the population of speech watches includes materially more Republicans than Democrats seems plausible.

Good to see you got your Soros talking points email to address the CNN bias. They forgot to include all the times CNN “qualified” its polls of Obama having good results.

Oh wait. It never happened.

Never mind.

You just keep thinking that.....

• 2013 -- " 'The poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the speech,' added Holland."
• 2016 -- "The poll is representative only of those who watched Tuesday's State of the Union."

And, no, I'm not, for a dumb ignoramus like you, going to find similar remarks for every SOTU speech Obama gave. You do that on your own; you need the practice at researching the veracity of your own assertions before making them.