The one political poll that matters

[Maxdeath]

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

So we should be able to determine everything by polling then. It will make shopping so much easier as we can poll everyone to see what they want to buy, what car to sell, what dishwashing soap to stock, what beer to sell. Imagine just how handy it will be to know in advance who the governor will be, who will be police chief.

Polling services do exactly that. They tell manufactures the kind of product the consumer wants, marketing the kind of advertising most likely to produce results, and policy makers what the public wants from government. However, polls are not the only forecasting tools used by businesses and government.

Ah sarcasm eludes you. If polls were able to predict so well there would only need to be one car built, one beer offered for sale, no need for people to vote. The problem is science wants to believe it understands how humans think and act, therefore it can predict everything about them.
The problem is it is very far from even coming close.

Polls don't tell us whether a car, a beer, or politician candidate is good or bad. They only tell us what people think.

Polls are only accurate when people have strong opinions or preferences. For example if a poll was done to determine the best table sale, it would be worthless because there is little difference in taste and most people don't have any opinion. Politician polls are much more accurate because most people have strong opinions and preferences in regard to candidates and issues. Studies have shown that political polls are among the most accurate, about 80%. Polls on the death penalty vary greatly because people vacillate. I have never seen a poll on beer, however you can bet that people who market and advertise the products have.

In politics, government, and business polling is extremely important because it tells us what people think about issues, political candidates, consumer products, and public policy. Governments, politician candidates, and business spend billions of dollars on research studies and polls to determine public opinion. If it was worthless, they would not be spending that kind of money on it.

So they are used for things but not accurate. They are extremely important but they are only accurate in certain circumstances. Companies and political candidates pay big money for polls that are not accurate or are only accurate in certain circumstances or certain instances.
Got it.
So if polls are only accurate in certain instances and certain circumstances how accurate are they if you have say an extra 10% of the people polled that lean Democrat? What happens to the extreme accuracy of a poll that has a slightly larger number of undecided? What happens to this supposed accuracy if someone feels a need to keep from being chastised by a pollster?

 

[Redfish]

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

So we should be able to determine everything by polling then. It will make shopping so much easier as we can poll everyone to see what they want to buy, what car to sell, what dishwashing soap to stock, what beer to sell. Imagine just how handy it will be to know in advance who the governor will be, who will be police chief.

Polling services do exactly that. They tell manufactures the kind of product the consumer wants, marketing the kind of advertising most likely to produce results, and policy makers what the public wants from government. However, polls are not the only forecasting tools used by businesses and government.

Ah sarcasm eludes you. If polls were able to predict so well there would only need to be one car built, one beer offered for sale, no need for people to vote. The problem is science wants to believe it understands how humans think and act, therefore it can predict everything about them.
The problem is it is very far from even coming close.

Polls don't tell us whether a car, a beer, or politician candidate is good or bad. They only tell us what people think.

Polls are only accurate when people have strong opinions or preferences. For example if a poll was done to determine the best table sale, it would be worthless because there is little difference in taste and most people don't have any opinion. Politician polls are much more accurate because most people have strong opinions and preferences in regard to candidates and issues. Studies have shown that political polls are among the most accurate, about 80%. Polls on the death penalty vary greatly because people vacillate. I have never seen a poll on beer, however you can bet that people who market and advertise the products have.

In politics, government, and business polling is extremely important because it tells us what people think about issues, political candidates, consumer products, and public policy. Governments, politician candidates, and business spend billions of dollars on research studies and polls to determine public opinion. If it was worthless, they would not be spending that kind of money on it.

So they are used for things but not accurate. They are extremely important but they are only accurate in certain circumstances. Companies and political candidates pay big money for polls that are not accurate or are only accurate in certain circumstances or certain instances.
Got it.
So if polls are only accurate in certain instances and certain circumstances how accurate are they if you have say an extra 10% of the people polled that lean Democrat? What happens to the extreme accuracy of a poll that has a slightly larger number of undecided? What happens to this supposed accuracy if someone feels a need to keep from being chastised by a pollster?

all true, but the bottom line is that polls today are designed propaganda, they are not intended to reflect public opinion, but rather to influence it.

 

[Seawytch]

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

They also poll a 1000 sample week after week after week. If the results of those samples swing wildly, the sample size is too small. But if your weekly poll is consistent in its conclusions, then you can have more confidence in its accuracy

tell us, oh great prognosticator, were the polls correct about hillary winning in 2016? Were they correct when they said that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

they lied to you then and they are lying to you now, wake up.

What the polls in 2016 showed was Hillary holding a six point lead a month before the election. FBI Director Comey released his unfounded accusations two weeks before the election and Hillary’s lead dropped to three points. Hillary won the popular vote by two percent

Polls can only predict what is known at the time the poll is taken. It cannot predict future events

more horseshit, there were polls the day before the election claiming that hillary would win and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. They were either wrong or lying, you choose which.

The polls were accurate. She beat him by the amount the polls predicted she would...nationally.

It Wasn't the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits | RealClearPolitics

 

[Redfish]

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

They also poll a 1000 sample week after week after week. If the results of those samples swing wildly, the sample size is too small. But if your weekly poll is consistent in its conclusions, then you can have more confidence in its accuracy

tell us, oh great prognosticator, were the polls correct about hillary winning in 2016? Were they correct when they said that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

they lied to you then and they are lying to you now, wake up.

What the polls in 2016 showed was Hillary holding a six point lead a month before the election. FBI Director Comey released his unfounded accusations two weeks before the election and Hillary’s lead dropped to three points. Hillary won the popular vote by two percent

Polls can only predict what is known at the time the poll is taken. It cannot predict future events

more horseshit, there were polls the day before the election claiming that hillary would win and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. They were either wrong or lying, you choose which.

The polls were accurate. She beat him by the amount the polls predicted she would...nationally.

It Wasn't the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits | RealClearPolitics

the polls said she would win the EC, they were either wrong or lying, or both.

we do not elect presidents by PV, if we did every president would be chosen by LA county, NYC, miami/dade, and houston. AND the candidates would only campaign in those 4 areas since no place else would matter or have any say in it.

Hillary's entire PV delta was in LA county. Do you really want a city with human waste flowing in the streets choosing our presidents?

 

[Seawytch]

They also poll a 1000 sample week after week after week. If the results of those samples swing wildly, the sample size is too small. But if your weekly poll is consistent in its conclusions, then you can have more confidence in its accuracy

tell us, oh great prognosticator, were the polls correct about hillary winning in 2016? Were they correct when they said that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

they lied to you then and they are lying to you now, wake up.

What the polls in 2016 showed was Hillary holding a six point lead a month before the election. FBI Director Comey released his unfounded accusations two weeks before the election and Hillary’s lead dropped to three points. Hillary won the popular vote by two percent

Polls can only predict what is known at the time the poll is taken. It cannot predict future events

more horseshit, there were polls the day before the election claiming that hillary would win and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. They were either wrong or lying, you choose which.

The polls were accurate. She beat him by the amount the polls predicted she would...nationally.

It Wasn't the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits | RealClearPolitics

the polls said she would win the EC, they were either wrong or lying, or both.

we do not elect presidents by PV, if we did every president would be chosen by LA county, NYC, miami/dade, and houston. AND the candidates would only campaign in those 4 areas since no place else would matter or have any say in it.

Hillary's entire PV delta was in LA county. Do you really want a city with human waste flowing in the streets choosing our presidents?

You really are not at all capable of doing anything but spewing debunked talking points?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.



And beyond that, you’re perfectly happy with fewer than 80,000 voters across three states choosing the President, why not 3 million in one?

 

[Redfish]

tell us, oh great prognosticator, were the polls correct about hillary winning in 2016? Were they correct when they said that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

they lied to you then and they are lying to you now, wake up.

What the polls in 2016 showed was Hillary holding a six point lead a month before the election. FBI Director Comey released his unfounded accusations two weeks before the election and Hillary’s lead dropped to three points. Hillary won the popular vote by two percent

Polls can only predict what is known at the time the poll is taken. It cannot predict future events

more horseshit, there were polls the day before the election claiming that hillary would win and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. They were either wrong or lying, you choose which.

The polls were accurate. She beat him by the amount the polls predicted she would...nationally.

It Wasn't the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits | RealClearPolitics

the polls said she would win the EC, they were either wrong or lying, or both.

we do not elect presidents by PV, if we did every president would be chosen by LA county, NYC, miami/dade, and houston. AND the candidates would only campaign in those 4 areas since no place else would matter or have any say in it.

Hillary's entire PV delta was in LA county. Do you really want a city with human waste flowing in the streets choosing our presidents?

You really are not at all capable of doing anything but spewing debunked talking points?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.



And beyond that, you’re perfectly happy with fewer than 80,000 voters across three states choosing the President, why not 3 million in one?

yes, we could play all kinds of numbers games in order to explain why crooked hillary lost, but the fact remains SHE LOST.

The founders created the electoral college just to prevent the kind of bullshit that you are engaging in right now, they had it right, you don't

 

[Seawytch]

What the polls in 2016 showed was Hillary holding a six point lead a month before the election. FBI Director Comey released his unfounded accusations two weeks before the election and Hillary’s lead dropped to three points. Hillary won the popular vote by two percent

Polls can only predict what is known at the time the poll is taken. It cannot predict future events

more horseshit, there were polls the day before the election claiming that hillary would win and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. They were either wrong or lying, you choose which.

The polls were accurate. She beat him by the amount the polls predicted she would...nationally.

It Wasn't the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits | RealClearPolitics

the polls said she would win the EC, they were either wrong or lying, or both.

we do not elect presidents by PV, if we did every president would be chosen by LA county, NYC, miami/dade, and houston. AND the candidates would only campaign in those 4 areas since no place else would matter or have any say in it.

Hillary's entire PV delta was in LA county. Do you really want a city with human waste flowing in the streets choosing our presidents?

You really are not at all capable of doing anything but spewing debunked talking points?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.



And beyond that, you’re perfectly happy with fewer than 80,000 voters across three states choosing the President, why not 3 million in one?

yes, we could play all kinds of numbers games in order to explain why crooked hillary lost, but the fact remains SHE LOST.

The founders created the electoral college just to prevent the kind of bullshit that you are engaging in right now, they had it right, you don't

And you can spin it any way you want, but America rejected Trump... By one of the largest margins in history. He is here only because of an archaic holdover from our slave owning days. The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

 

[Redfish]

more horseshit, there were polls the day before the election claiming that hillary would win and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. They were either wrong or lying, you choose which.

The polls were accurate. She beat him by the amount the polls predicted she would...nationally.

It Wasn't the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits | RealClearPolitics

the polls said she would win the EC, they were either wrong or lying, or both.

we do not elect presidents by PV, if we did every president would be chosen by LA county, NYC, miami/dade, and houston. AND the candidates would only campaign in those 4 areas since no place else would matter or have any say in it.

Hillary's entire PV delta was in LA county. Do you really want a city with human waste flowing in the streets choosing our presidents?

You really are not at all capable of doing anything but spewing debunked talking points?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.



And beyond that, you’re perfectly happy with fewer than 80,000 voters across three states choosing the President, why not 3 million in one?

yes, we could play all kinds of numbers games in order to explain why crooked hillary lost, but the fact remains SHE LOST.

The founders created the electoral college just to prevent the kind of bullshit that you are engaging in right now, they had it right, you don't

And you can spin it any way you want, but America rejected Trump... By one of the largest margins in history. He is here only because of an archaic holdover from our slave owning days. The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

I can explain it to you numerous times, but I cannot make you understand. the EC had nothing to do with slavery, it had to do with giving all states a voice in presidential elections.

what is it with you libs and slavery? is it guilt because the democrat party has always been the party of slavery? and that even today the dems want minorities to blindly follow their every dictate and not think for themselves?

sorry, but that history cannot be changed and many minority citizens are rejecting the racist policies of the democrats who want them as cannon fodder and manipulate them to keep them in poverty with promises of grand things to come that never happen.

 

[Seawytch]

The polls were accurate. She beat him by the amount the polls predicted she would...nationally.

It Wasn't the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits | RealClearPolitics

the polls said she would win the EC, they were either wrong or lying, or both.

we do not elect presidents by PV, if we did every president would be chosen by LA county, NYC, miami/dade, and houston. AND the candidates would only campaign in those 4 areas since no place else would matter or have any say in it.

Hillary's entire PV delta was in LA county. Do you really want a city with human waste flowing in the streets choosing our presidents?

You really are not at all capable of doing anything but spewing debunked talking points?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.



And beyond that, you’re perfectly happy with fewer than 80,000 voters across three states choosing the President, why not 3 million in one?

yes, we could play all kinds of numbers games in order to explain why crooked hillary lost, but the fact remains SHE LOST.

The founders created the electoral college just to prevent the kind of bullshit that you are engaging in right now, they had it right, you don't

And you can spin it any way you want, but America rejected Trump... By one of the largest margins in history. He is here only because of an archaic holdover from our slave owning days. The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

I can explain it to you numerous times, but I cannot make you understand. the EC had nothing to do with slavery, it had to do with giving all states a voice in presidential elections.

what is it with you libs and slavery? is it guilt because the democrat party has always been the party of slavery? and that even today the dems want minorities to blindly follow their every dictate and not think for themselves?

sorry, but that history cannot be changed and many minority citizens are rejecting the racist policies of the democrats who want them as cannon fodder and manipulate them to keep them in poverty with promises of grand things to come that never happen.

Oh you "could" educate me, but I'd never understand? Uh huh...cop out.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.​

 

[Redfish]

the polls said she would win the EC, they were either wrong or lying, or both.

we do not elect presidents by PV, if we did every president would be chosen by LA county, NYC, miami/dade, and houston. AND the candidates would only campaign in those 4 areas since no place else would matter or have any say in it.

Hillary's entire PV delta was in LA county. Do you really want a city with human waste flowing in the streets choosing our presidents?

You really are not at all capable of doing anything but spewing debunked talking points?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.



And beyond that, you’re perfectly happy with fewer than 80,000 voters across three states choosing the President, why not 3 million in one?

yes, we could play all kinds of numbers games in order to explain why crooked hillary lost, but the fact remains SHE LOST.

The founders created the electoral college just to prevent the kind of bullshit that you are engaging in right now, they had it right, you don't

And you can spin it any way you want, but America rejected Trump... By one of the largest margins in history. He is here only because of an archaic holdover from our slave owning days. The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

I can explain it to you numerous times, but I cannot make you understand. the EC had nothing to do with slavery, it had to do with giving all states a voice in presidential elections.

what is it with you libs and slavery? is it guilt because the democrat party has always been the party of slavery? and that even today the dems want minorities to blindly follow their every dictate and not think for themselves?

sorry, but that history cannot be changed and many minority citizens are rejecting the racist policies of the democrats who want them as cannon fodder and manipulate them to keep them in poverty with promises of grand things to come that never happen.

Oh you "could" educate me, but I'd never understand? Uh huh...cop out.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.​

yep, the democrat slave owners in the south were responsible, now its biting you dems in the ass, funny.

 

[Seawytch]

You really are not at all capable of doing anything but spewing debunked talking points?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.



And beyond that, you’re perfectly happy with fewer than 80,000 voters across three states choosing the President, why not 3 million in one?

yes, we could play all kinds of numbers games in order to explain why crooked hillary lost, but the fact remains SHE LOST.

The founders created the electoral college just to prevent the kind of bullshit that you are engaging in right now, they had it right, you don't

And you can spin it any way you want, but America rejected Trump... By one of the largest margins in history. He is here only because of an archaic holdover from our slave owning days. The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

I can explain it to you numerous times, but I cannot make you understand. the EC had nothing to do with slavery, it had to do with giving all states a voice in presidential elections.

what is it with you libs and slavery? is it guilt because the democrat party has always been the party of slavery? and that even today the dems want minorities to blindly follow their every dictate and not think for themselves?

sorry, but that history cannot be changed and many minority citizens are rejecting the racist policies of the democrats who want them as cannon fodder and manipulate them to keep them in poverty with promises of grand things to come that never happen.

Oh you "could" educate me, but I'd never understand? Uh huh...cop out.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.​

yep, the democrat slave owners in the south were responsible, now its biting you dems in the ass, funny.

And yet it isn't the Democrats that support giving the former slave owning states more voting power than other states that didn't own slaves.

Why are you opposed to the prospect of "one voter, one vote", all votes carrying equal weight?

 

[Redfish]

yes, we could play all kinds of numbers games in order to explain why crooked hillary lost, but the fact remains SHE LOST.

The founders created the electoral college just to prevent the kind of bullshit that you are engaging in right now, they had it right, you don't

And you can spin it any way you want, but America rejected Trump... By one of the largest margins in history. He is here only because of an archaic holdover from our slave owning days. The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

I can explain it to you numerous times, but I cannot make you understand. the EC had nothing to do with slavery, it had to do with giving all states a voice in presidential elections.

what is it with you libs and slavery? is it guilt because the democrat party has always been the party of slavery? and that even today the dems want minorities to blindly follow their every dictate and not think for themselves?

sorry, but that history cannot be changed and many minority citizens are rejecting the racist policies of the democrats who want them as cannon fodder and manipulate them to keep them in poverty with promises of grand things to come that never happen.

Oh you "could" educate me, but I'd never understand? Uh huh...cop out.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.​

yep, the democrat slave owners in the south were responsible, now its biting you dems in the ass, funny.

And yet it isn't the Democrats that support giving the former slave owning states more voting power than other states that didn't own slaves.

Why are you opposed to the prospect of "one voter, one vote", all votes carrying equal weight?

sorry but it was democrats who supported slavery and support virtual slavery today.

because if we used the PV in national elections a few populous places in the country would decide every election and would vote for those who would pump money into those places-----------and the rest of the country would have no voice and would be dumped on in every way.

Its very obvious unless, like you, your viewpoint is limited to what your political handlers tell you to think.

 

[Seawytch]

And you can spin it any way you want, but America rejected Trump... By one of the largest margins in history. He is here only because of an archaic holdover from our slave owning days. The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

I can explain it to you numerous times, but I cannot make you understand. the EC had nothing to do with slavery, it had to do with giving all states a voice in presidential elections.

what is it with you libs and slavery? is it guilt because the democrat party has always been the party of slavery? and that even today the dems want minorities to blindly follow their every dictate and not think for themselves?

sorry, but that history cannot be changed and many minority citizens are rejecting the racist policies of the democrats who want them as cannon fodder and manipulate them to keep them in poverty with promises of grand things to come that never happen.

Oh you "could" educate me, but I'd never understand? Uh huh...cop out.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.​

yep, the democrat slave owners in the south were responsible, now its biting you dems in the ass, funny.

And yet it isn't the Democrats that support giving the former slave owning states more voting power than other states that didn't own slaves.

Why are you opposed to the prospect of "one voter, one vote", all votes carrying equal weight?

sorry but it was democrats who supported slavery and support virtual slavery today.

because if we used the PV in national elections a few populous places in the country would decide every election and would vote for those who would pump money into those places-----------and the rest of the country would have no voice and would be dumped on in every way.

Its very obvious unless, like you, your viewpoint is limited to what your political handlers tell you to think.

No, it was Southerners that supported Slavery and then Segregation, period. Those Southerners were Democrats. They are no longer. Why? Civil Rights. You're welcome for the history lesson.

 

[Flopper]

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

horseshit, please go buy a stat 101 textbook and stop making a fool of yourself.

Any basic statistic textbook will show you have no idea what you are babbling about

I am quite sure that I know a lot more about statistical math than you will ever know. A sample of 1000 (or 5000) out of a population of 330,000,000 is totally meaningless.

If you know anything about statistically sampling you know it does not take a a huge sample to represent a large population as long as the sample is taken randomly from the population, meaning that people are selected one at a time, with all persons in the U.S. being equally likely to be picked at each point. If the algorithm for selecting the sample is a good one, increasing the size of sample should have little effect on the results. This is the way you know your algorithm for sampling is a good one, larger samples produce only negligible differences.

 

[Redfish]

I can explain it to you numerous times, but I cannot make you understand. the EC had nothing to do with slavery, it had to do with giving all states a voice in presidential elections.

what is it with you libs and slavery? is it guilt because the democrat party has always been the party of slavery? and that even today the dems want minorities to blindly follow their every dictate and not think for themselves?

sorry, but that history cannot be changed and many minority citizens are rejecting the racist policies of the democrats who want them as cannon fodder and manipulate them to keep them in poverty with promises of grand things to come that never happen.

Oh you "could" educate me, but I'd never understand? Uh huh...cop out.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.​

yep, the democrat slave owners in the south were responsible, now its biting you dems in the ass, funny.

And yet it isn't the Democrats that support giving the former slave owning states more voting power than other states that didn't own slaves.

Why are you opposed to the prospect of "one voter, one vote", all votes carrying equal weight?

sorry but it was democrats who supported slavery and support virtual slavery today.

because if we used the PV in national elections a few populous places in the country would decide every election and would vote for those who would pump money into those places-----------and the rest of the country would have no voice and would be dumped on in every way.

Its very obvious unless, like you, your viewpoint is limited to what your political handlers tell you to think.

No, it was Southerners that supported Slavery and then Segregation, period. Those Southerners were Democrats. They are no longer. Why? Civil Rights. You're welcome for the history lesson.

wrong again, witchey. there were slaves in Illinois and several other northern states. The KKK was in all states and was exclusively democrats. Democrats still control most of the big cities in the south (and most of the country) could that be why our big cities are all financially failing and have become shitholes with people living and crapping on the streets?

even today the dem party wants to control blacks and mandate how they think, what they believe, and how they vote-------and they will try to destroy any blacks who dare to disagree with the far left dem mantra. Slavery comes in many forms and the dems use all of them.

 

[Redfish]

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

horseshit, please go buy a stat 101 textbook and stop making a fool of yourself.

Any basic statistic textbook will show you have no idea what you are babbling about

I am quite sure that I know a lot more about statistical math than you will ever know. A sample of 1000 (or 5000) out of a population of 330,000,000 is totally meaningless.

If you know anything about statistically sampling you know it does not take a a huge sample to represent a large population as long as the sample is taken randomly from the population, meaning that people are selected one at a time, with all persons in the U.S. being equally likely to be picked at each point. If the algorithm for selecting the sample is a good one, increasing the size of sample should have little effect on the results. This is the way you know your algorithm for sampling is a good one, larger samples produce only negligible differences.

totally wrong, in order for a truly random sample to be valid it must be at least 5% of the population being sampled. today's pollsters try to get around that by claiming to select a sample that proportionately represents every demographic in the entire country. They claim that their samples of 1000 contain a proportional number of every group and belief in the country, that is simply impossible.

instead they oversample certain demographics that will give the result that the group paying for the poll wants. its propaganda, not polling.

I know more about this than you do, don't continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh you "could" educate me, but I'd never understand? Uh huh...cop out.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.​

yep, the democrat slave owners in the south were responsible, now its biting you dems in the ass, funny.

And yet it isn't the Democrats that support giving the former slave owning states more voting power than other states that didn't own slaves.

Why are you opposed to the prospect of "one voter, one vote", all votes carrying equal weight?

sorry but it was democrats who supported slavery and support virtual slavery today.

because if we used the PV in national elections a few populous places in the country would decide every election and would vote for those who would pump money into those places-----------and the rest of the country would have no voice and would be dumped on in every way.

Its very obvious unless, like you, your viewpoint is limited to what your political handlers tell you to think.

No, it was Southerners that supported Slavery and then Segregation, period. Those Southerners were Democrats. They are no longer. Why? Civil Rights. You're welcome for the history lesson.

wrong again, witchey. there were slaves in Illinois and several other northern states. The KKK was in all states and was exclusively democrats. Democrats still control most of the big cities in the south (and most of the country) could that be why our big cities are all financially failing and have become shitholes with people living and crapping on the streets?

even today the dem party wants to control blacks and mandate how they think, what they believe, and how they vote-------and they will try to destroy any blacks who dare to disagree with the far left dem mantra. Slavery comes in many forms and the dems use all of them.

Are you capable of independent though at all? Slave states:

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Civil Rights Act:

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[23]

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

It's all purely regional. The southern states have always been racist regardless of party.

 

[Flopper]

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

They also poll a 1000 sample week after week after week. If the results of those samples swing wildly, the sample size is too small. But if your weekly poll is consistent in its conclusions, then you can have more confidence in its accuracy

tell us, oh great prognosticator, were the polls correct about hillary winning in 2016? Were they correct when they said that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

they lied to you then and they are lying to you now, wake up.

Pollsters do not call elections. Elections are called by major networks, and news organization. They use polling data, exit polls, research into key areas, and computer generated models. The major polls in 2016 were just as accurate as in previous presidential elections because the numbers they report for all but a few states were within their stated margin of error.

 

[Flopper]

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

So we should be able to determine everything by polling then. It will make shopping so much easier as we can poll everyone to see what they want to buy, what car to sell, what dishwashing soap to stock, what beer to sell. Imagine just how handy it will be to know in advance who the governor will be, who will be police chief.

Polling services do exactly that. They tell manufactures the kind of product the consumer wants, marketing the kind of advertising most likely to produce results, and policy makers what the public wants from government. However, polls are not the only forecasting tools used by businesses and government.

Ah sarcasm eludes you. If polls were able to predict so well there would only need to be one car built, one beer offered for sale, no need for people to vote. The problem is science wants to believe it understands how humans think and act, therefore it can predict everything about them.
The problem is it is very far from even coming close.

Polls don't tell us whether a car, a beer, or politician candidate is good or bad. They only tell us what people think.

Polls are only accurate when people have strong opinions or preferences. For example if a poll was done to determine the best table sale, it would be worthless because there is little difference in taste and most people don't have any opinion. Politician polls are much more accurate because most people have strong opinions and preferences in regard to candidates and issues. Studies have shown that political polls are among the most accurate, about 80%. Polls on the death penalty vary greatly because people vacillate. I have never seen a poll on beer, however you can bet that people who market and advertise the products have.

In politics, government, and business polling is extremely important because it tells us what people think about issues, political candidates, consumer products, and public policy. Governments, politician candidates, and business spend billions of dollars on research studies and polls to determine public opinion. If it was worthless, they would not be spending that kind of money on it.

So they are used for things but not accurate. They are extremely important but they are only accurate in certain circumstances. Companies and political candidates pay big money for polls that are not accurate or are only accurate in certain circumstances or certain instances.
Got it.
So if polls are only accurate in certain instances and certain circumstances how accurate are they if you have say an extra 10% of the people polled that lean Democrat? What happens to the extreme accuracy of a poll that has a slightly larger number of undecided? What happens to this supposed accuracy if someone feels a need to keep from being chastised by a pollster?

Many people think that in a poll of 500 people, the pollster contacts only 500 people and that's the poll, not so. Typically, in scientific, the pollsters will contact far more people than in the final sample because many of those contacted will not be counted in order for the poll to be represent of the population. If the criteria used to construct the sample is party favored, age, family income, race, sex then those selected will form a statically average that matches the area being polled.

If a poll reveals a much larger number of undecided voters than expected, then the confidence level of poll will be low. How polls handle undecided voters varies by polls. Some polls eliminated them because they believe that they will split in the same manner as decided voters. However most polls report them as undecided.

Keep in mind, pollster don't call elections. They just report how the population being polled plans to vote or who they favor. It is forecasters in news organization that use polling data and other research to call elections.

 

[Redfish]

yep, the democrat slave owners in the south were responsible, now its biting you dems in the ass, funny.

And yet it isn't the Democrats that support giving the former slave owning states more voting power than other states that didn't own slaves.

Why are you opposed to the prospect of "one voter, one vote", all votes carrying equal weight?

sorry but it was democrats who supported slavery and support virtual slavery today.

because if we used the PV in national elections a few populous places in the country would decide every election and would vote for those who would pump money into those places-----------and the rest of the country would have no voice and would be dumped on in every way.

Its very obvious unless, like you, your viewpoint is limited to what your political handlers tell you to think.

No, it was Southerners that supported Slavery and then Segregation, period. Those Southerners were Democrats. They are no longer. Why? Civil Rights. You're welcome for the history lesson.

wrong again, witchey. there were slaves in Illinois and several other northern states. The KKK was in all states and was exclusively democrats. Democrats still control most of the big cities in the south (and most of the country) could that be why our big cities are all financially failing and have become shitholes with people living and crapping on the streets?

even today the dem party wants to control blacks and mandate how they think, what they believe, and how they vote-------and they will try to destroy any blacks who dare to disagree with the far left dem mantra. Slavery comes in many forms and the dems use all of them.

Are you capable of independent though at all? Slave states:

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Civil Rights Act:

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[23]

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

It's all purely regional. The southern states have always been racist regardless of party.

the entire world has always been racist and still is today. To pretend otherwise in naive at best, stupid at worst. If you think its not racist, go to the Congo as a white person and see how you are treated. Racism is a mammalian trait, we are trying to reduce it, but it will always be there. Wolves run with wolves, and rabbits run with rabbits, and collies run with collies. Its not bad or evil, its just nature.

This is not condoning or approving of it, merely stating a biological fact.