Obama Speech Falls Flat...

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.

No, informal means it is just not accepted by the pollsters who feed us the normal filtered and augmented crap. ;)
 
Obama put the republicans on the defensive for the first time. He deflated their arguments and Rep Wilson's outburst put a spotlight on republican intranscience on this issue.
Even the republican rebuttal supported all the points Obama had made in his address.
 
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 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.

Yes they are - I make no bones about that.

They are simply meant to indicate a general trend - Obama's speech has done nothing to better his cause, and in fact, may have harmed it.

Rejoin this thread in a week or two and see if I am wrong...
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Please tell me you're not someone who places validity in an online poll/

I mean, really.
 
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.

I certainly don't think that any polling is particularly trustworthy. I don't listen to any single polls - the only polling that I take to heart is algorithmic weighted polling on a large scale - such as what Nate Silver did on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right for the election last year.
 
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.

Please tell me you're not someone who places validity in an online poll/

I mean, really.

you will have to wait until there is a sci fi show about scientific polls. then she will be an expert.
 

Forum List

Back
Top