keepitreal
Platinum Member
That worked out well for Hillary
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's official: Majority of Amercian's voted Barack Obama, Best President Ever!
- Thread starter Billo_Really
- Start date
- Aug 4, 2009
- 282,058
- 145,790
- 2,615
The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percentStatistical sampling theoryonly if that 44% is a fair cross section of the country.
Seems to be something wrong with your comprehension, not mine.Omg....wtf are you talking about?only if that 44% is a fair cross section of the country.
Seems to be something wrong with your comprehension, not mine.
44%, of 2,002 people, isn't a fair representation of people...
44%, of 2,002 people, is less than 20 people per state
And your talking about, as long as it's a fair cross section
There is definitely something wrong with your
comprehension, math and critical thinking skills....not mine
Sorry, I'm not fluent in idiocySorry, I'm not fluent in idiocy
your posts prove otherwise.
you're not getting the point.
if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?Sorry, I'm not fluent in idiocyROFLMAO...is that soyour posts prove otherwise.
Since it's acceptable for you to be an idiot,
it's acceptable for me to point it out
No darling, I reject your illogical argumentyou're not getting the point.
You don't have, nor make, a reasonable point,
when it's supported by an illogical argument
Post #83 ^44% of 2200 doesn't represent over 200 million people, if the participants don't represent an equal cross section of the country.
it only represents 44% of those 2200 people.
So, let me get this straight...if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?
if the 3 main political parties are equally represented,
by the 2,002 people, responding to the poll,
the poll is fair and reflects the majority of millions
Otherwise, the % only is reflective of the 2,002 respondents
2,002 people COULD NEVER conclude the likelihood of millions!
How you reason, a fair cross section, of 2,002 people,
across the country, would achieve this, is mind boggling!
The poll itself, isn't even accurately reflecting the results
It's official, the overwhelming majority of Americans
DID NOT take part in a poll and select Obama, as the best POTUS
Everyone has a right to be stupid,
but, you're just abusing that privilege!
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of errorThat worked out well for HillaryStatistical sampling theory
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of error
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percentStatistical sampling theoryOmg....wtf are you talking about?
44%, of 2,002 people, isn't a fair representation of people...
44%, of 2,002 people, is less than 20 people per state
And your talking about, as long as it's a fair cross section
There is definitely something wrong with your
comprehension, math and critical thinking skills....not mine
Sorry, I'm not fluent in idiocySorry, I'm not fluent in idiocy
your posts prove otherwise.
you're not getting the point.
if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?Sorry, I'm not fluent in idiocyROFLMAO...is that soyour posts prove otherwise.
Since it's acceptable for you to be an idiot,
it's acceptable for me to point it out
No darling, I reject your illogical argumentyou're not getting the point.
You don't have, nor make, a reasonable point,
when it's supported by an illogical argument
Post #83 ^44% of 2200 doesn't represent over 200 million people, if the participants don't represent an equal cross section of the country.
it only represents 44% of those 2200 people.
So, let me get this straight...if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?
if the 3 main political parties are equally represented,
by the 2,002 people, responding to the poll,
the poll is fair and reflects the majority of millions
Otherwise, the % only is reflective of the 2,002 respondents
2,002 people COULD NEVER conclude the likelihood of millions!
How you reason, a fair cross section, of 2,002 people,
across the country, would achieve this, is mind boggling!
The poll itself, isn't even accurately reflecting the results
It's official, the overwhelming majority of Americans
DID NOT take part in a poll and select Obama, as the best POTUS
Everyone has a right to be stupid,
but, you're just abusing that privilege!
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of errorThat worked out well for HillaryStatistical sampling theory
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of error
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percent
How many EC votes did it have her up by?
keepitreal
Platinum Member
The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percentStatistical sampling theoryOmg....wtf are you talking about?
44%, of 2,002 people, isn't a fair representation of people...
44%, of 2,002 people, is less than 20 people per state
And your talking about, as long as it's a fair cross section
There is definitely something wrong with your
comprehension, math and critical thinking skills....not mine
Sorry, I'm not fluent in idiocySorry, I'm not fluent in idiocy
your posts prove otherwise.
you're not getting the point.
if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?Sorry, I'm not fluent in idiocyROFLMAO...is that soyour posts prove otherwise.
Since it's acceptable for you to be an idiot,
it's acceptable for me to point it out
No darling, I reject your illogical argumentyou're not getting the point.
You don't have, nor make, a reasonable point,
when it's supported by an illogical argument
Post #83 ^44% of 2200 doesn't represent over 200 million people, if the participants don't represent an equal cross section of the country.
it only represents 44% of those 2200 people.
So, let me get this straight...if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?
if the 3 main political parties are equally represented,
by the 2,002 people, responding to the poll,
the poll is fair and reflects the majority of millions
Otherwise, the % only is reflective of the 2,002 respondents
2,002 people COULD NEVER conclude the likelihood of millions!
How you reason, a fair cross section, of 2,002 people,
across the country, would achieve this, is mind boggling!
The poll itself, isn't even accurately reflecting the results
It's official, the overwhelming majority of Americans
DID NOT take part in a poll and select Obama, as the best POTUS
Everyone has a right to be stupid,
but, you're just abusing that privilege!
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of errorThat worked out well for HillaryStatistical sampling theory
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of error
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
Yet, she lost the election..... I'm sorry, your point is......The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percent
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
hillary in a landslideIn a recent Pew Research Poll, Barack Obama is No.1 in the Best President category.
Well, I think I'll just leave it at that.
Obama Leaves Trump in the Dust in Public's Ranking of the Best Presidents
"When asked which president has done the best job in their lifetimes, more Americans name Barack Obama than any other president."
Despite President Donald Trump's fervent support among his base, a recently released Pew Research Center poll found that he is trailing President Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, and President Ronald Reagan in a survey of public opinion.
We got it.
- Aug 4, 2009
- 282,058
- 145,790
- 2,615
Beats meThe last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percentStatistical sampling theoryyour posts prove otherwise.
you're not getting the point.
if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?Sorry, I'm not fluent in idiocyROFLMAO...is that soyour posts prove otherwise.
Since it's acceptable for you to be an idiot,
it's acceptable for me to point it out
No darling, I reject your illogical argumentyou're not getting the point.
You don't have, nor make, a reasonable point,
when it's supported by an illogical argument
Post #83 ^44% of 2200 doesn't represent over 200 million people, if the participants don't represent an equal cross section of the country.
it only represents 44% of those 2200 people.
So, let me get this straight...if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?
if the 3 main political parties are equally represented,
by the 2,002 people, responding to the poll,
the poll is fair and reflects the majority of millions
Otherwise, the % only is reflective of the 2,002 respondents
2,002 people COULD NEVER conclude the likelihood of millions!
How you reason, a fair cross section, of 2,002 people,
across the country, would achieve this, is mind boggling!
The poll itself, isn't even accurately reflecting the results
It's official, the overwhelming majority of Americans
DID NOT take part in a poll and select Obama, as the best POTUS
Everyone has a right to be stupid,
but, you're just abusing that privilege!
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of errorThat worked out well for HillaryStatistical sampling theory
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of error
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percent
How many EC votes did it have her up by?
- Aug 4, 2009
- 282,058
- 145,790
- 2,615
Nationwide polls were accurateThe last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percentStatistical sampling theoryyour posts prove otherwise.
you're not getting the point.
if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?Sorry, I'm not fluent in idiocyROFLMAO...is that soyour posts prove otherwise.
Since it's acceptable for you to be an idiot,
it's acceptable for me to point it out
No darling, I reject your illogical argumentyou're not getting the point.
You don't have, nor make, a reasonable point,
when it's supported by an illogical argument
Post #83 ^44% of 2200 doesn't represent over 200 million people, if the participants don't represent an equal cross section of the country.
it only represents 44% of those 2200 people.
So, let me get this straight...if 1500 of those polled are democrats, 500 republicans, and 2 independents....
is it a fair poll?
if the 3 main political parties are equally represented,
by the 2,002 people, responding to the poll,
the poll is fair and reflects the majority of millions
Otherwise, the % only is reflective of the 2,002 respondents
2,002 people COULD NEVER conclude the likelihood of millions!
How you reason, a fair cross section, of 2,002 people,
across the country, would achieve this, is mind boggling!
The poll itself, isn't even accurately reflecting the results
It's official, the overwhelming majority of Americans
DID NOT take part in a poll and select Obama, as the best POTUS
Everyone has a right to be stupid,
but, you're just abusing that privilege!
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of errorThat worked out well for HillaryStatistical sampling theory
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of error
She won the popular vote by 3 percentYet, she lost the election..... I'm sorry, your point is......The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percent
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
Beats meThe last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percentStatistical sampling theoryROFLMAO...is that so
Since it's acceptable for you to be an idiot,
it's acceptable for me to point it out
No darling, I reject your illogical argument
You don't have, nor make, a reasonable point,
when it's supported by an illogical argument
Post #83 ^
So, let me get this straight...
if the 3 main political parties are equally represented,
by the 2,002 people, responding to the poll,
the poll is fair and reflects the majority of millions
Otherwise, the % only is reflective of the 2,002 respondents
2,002 people COULD NEVER conclude the likelihood of millions!
How you reason, a fair cross section, of 2,002 people,
across the country, would achieve this, is mind boggling!
The poll itself, isn't even accurately reflecting the results
It's official, the overwhelming majority of Americans
DID NOT take part in a poll and select Obama, as the best POTUS
Everyone has a right to be stupid,
but, you're just abusing that privilege!
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of errorThat worked out well for HillaryStatistical sampling theory
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of error
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percent
How many EC votes did it have her up by?
She had a 98% chance of winning, according to the NY Times.
She must have been up by 60-100 easy.
The Worst Political Predictions of 2016
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
- Aug 4, 2009
- 282,058
- 145,790
- 2,615
Putin knows his shitBeats meThe last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percentStatistical sampling theory
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of errorThat worked out well for HillaryStatistical sampling theory
You can tell a lot about a population of 300 million with a random sample of 2000 and a margin of error
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percent
How many EC votes did it have her up by?
She had a 98% chance of winning, according to the NY Times.
She must have been up by 60-100 easy.
View attachment 204851
The Worst Political Predictions of 2016
View attachment 204854
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Hope Trump thanks him tomorrow
Putin knows his shitBeats meThe last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percentThat worked out well for Hillary
She won the popular vote by 3 percent
The last nationwide poll had her up by 4 percent
How many EC votes did it have her up by?
She had a 98% chance of winning, according to the NY Times.
She must have been up by 60-100 easy.
View attachment 204851
The Worst Political Predictions of 2016
View attachment 204854
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Hope Trump thanks him tomorrow
After the Dems lose 5 or 6 Senate seats, the whole country will be thanking him.
- Thread starter
- #271
Thanks to Russian collusion.hillary in a landslide
We got it.
- Thread starter
- #272
There is a Grand Canyon of difference between Trumps tour of Europe and when Barack Obama made a similar tour.
Both had similar crowd sizes, but where one was loved and admired, the other was hated and detested.
Both had similar crowd sizes, but where one was loved and admired, the other was hated and detested.
well, I guess you can explain how one vote was changed by the electoral college?Thanks to Russian collusion.hillary in a landslide
We got it.
How many votes did those Russians magically change?
Do you think lucky charms come with a leprechaun?
Sure fake news and Hollywood productionThere is a Grand Canyon of difference between Trumps tour of Europe and when Barack Obama made a similar tour.
Both had similar crowd sizes, but where one was loved and admired, the other was hated and detested.
Do you somehow think Americans aren't in contact with British citizens? and don't know what's going on?
- Thread starter
- #275
It has nothing to do with magic. It has a lot to do with the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents to hack the DNC and spread rumors and negative press about Hillary Clinton. As these 12 latest indictments have shown.well, I guess you can explain how one vote was changed by the electoral college?
How many votes did those Russians magically change?
Do you think lucky charms come with a leprechaun?
- Thread starter
- #276
What's fake about it?[
Sure fake news and Hollywood production
Do you somehow think Americans aren't in contact with British citizens? and don't know what's going on?
How if any collusion change one vote of the electoral college.It has nothing to do with magic. It has a lot to do with the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents to hack the DNC and spread rumors and negative press about Hillary Clinton. As these 12 latest indictments have shown.well, I guess you can explain how one vote was changed by the electoral college?
How many votes did those Russians magically change?
Do you think lucky charms come with a leprechaun?
You would need to prove the electoral college colluded with the Russians.
Most at the protest don't know what they are protesting they can't give a reason why they dislike trump. Plus there are more repressive governments in the world and they are silent about them.What's fake about it?[
Sure fake news and Hollywood production
Do you somehow think Americans aren't in contact with British citizens? and don't know what's going on?
Some are blaming Trump for global warming lol
It has nothing to do with magic. It has a lot to do with the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents to hack the DNC and spread rumors and negative press about Hillary Clinton. As these 12 latest indictments have shown.well, I guess you can explain how one vote was changed by the electoral college?
How many votes did those Russians magically change?
Do you think lucky charms come with a leprechaun?
colluding with Russian agents to hack the DNC and spread rumors and negative press about Hillary Clinton.
Reminding voters about Hillary's corruption was bad. Voters should be kept in the dark.
- Aug 4, 2009
- 282,058
- 145,790
- 2,615
There is a Grand Canyon of difference between Trumps tour of Europe and when Barack Obama made a similar tour.
Both had similar crowd sizes, but where one was loved and admired, the other was hated and detested.
Trumps mother was born in Scotland
They hate him the most
Similar threads
- Replies
- 58
- Views
- 950
- Replies
- 575
- Views
- 8K
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 896
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 521
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 100
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 40
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 51
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8158
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 474
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-