Are democrats intentionally trying to lose the 2016 election?

[rightwinger]

how about using a little common sense. there are 330,000,000 people in the USA. most national polls use 800 to 1200 people in their samples.

1000 out of 330,000,000 is what % ? can you do the math?

I know they claim to use "representative" samples. but come on, its a game.

Total ignorance of statistical sampling techniques

More reasons why Republicans lost in 2012

your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. go to your local library, pick up a stat 101 textbook. Look up "representative sample".

It will tell you that for a sample be significant it must be a least 5% of the population.
the pollsters have tried to come up with some mumbo jumbo by which they claim that they pull samples that include all elements of the population and thereby overcome the math.

Its bullshit, the math does not change, they cannot change it. Polls are being used to influence political opinion, not to report on it.

if you want to buy into that fraud, go right ahead.

No statistician would give you an absolute 5% sample size because your required percentage decreases as your sample size increases. A statistical sample of 1000 can be very telling in estimating a population assuming statistical randomness

You are assuming only a single sample is made. Multiple polls are conducted week by week. If I take a 1000 point sample one week and it shows Democrat 54% and Republican 46% and the next week it shows Republican 54% and Democrat 46% then I know that my sample is not representative of the population

But if my samples of different populations of 1000 show consistently that Democrats are maintaining a range of 52%-56%then I know I am accurately gauging the whole population with +/- 2%

 

[Redfish]

Total ignorance of statistical sampling techniques

More reasons why Republicans lost in 2012

your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. go to your local library, pick up a stat 101 textbook. Look up "representative sample".

It will tell you that for a sample be significant it must be a least 5% of the population.
the pollsters have tried to come up with some mumbo jumbo by which they claim that they pull samples that include all elements of the population and thereby overcome the math.

Its bullshit, the math does not change, they cannot change it. Polls are being used to influence political opinion, not to report on it.

if you want to buy into that fraud, go right ahead.

You are assuming only a single sample is made. Multiple polls are conducted week by week. If I take a 1000 point sample one week and it shows Democrat 54% and Republican 46% and the next week it shows Republican 54% and Democrat 46% then I know that my sample is not representative of the population

But if my samples of different populations of 1000 show consistently that Democrats are maintaining a range of 52%-56%then I know I am accurately gauging the whole population with +/- 2%

LOL, as I said, if you choose to buy into the fraud, go right ahead. The math is the truth and it cannot be changed.

a rolling tiny sample does not change the need for a 5% sample

 

[Redfish]

Total ignorance of statistical sampling techniques

More reasons why Republicans lost in 2012

your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. go to your local library, pick up a stat 101 textbook. Look up "representative sample".

It will tell you that for a sample be significant it must be a least 5% of the population.
the pollsters have tried to come up with some mumbo jumbo by which they claim that they pull samples that include all elements of the population and thereby overcome the math.

Its bullshit, the math does not change, they cannot change it. Polls are being used to influence political opinion, not to report on it.

if you want to buy into that fraud, go right ahead.

No statistician would give you an absolute 5% sample size because your required percentage decreases as your sample size increases. A statistical sample of 1000 can be very telling in estimating a population assuming statistical randomness

You are assuming only a single sample is made. Multiple polls are conducted week by week. If I take a 1000 point sample one week and it shows Democrat 54% and Republican 46% and the next week it shows Republican 54% and Democrat 46% then I know that my sample is not representative of the population

But if my samples of different populations of 1000 show consistently that Democrats are maintaining a range of 52%-56%then I know I am accurately gauging the whole population with +/- 2%

A real statistician wants his sample to be as large as possible because the larger the sample the greater the accuracy. with a population of over 300 million, a pollster would need a sample of 15 million to have a statistically significant result.

they try to get around this by manipulating the sample to try to include all possible political, racial, ethnic, religious, income, and age variations. that is impossible so they just play their little game, get paid, and whoever pays for the poll tells the pollster what result he is looking for.

but, if you buy into it, fine. I do not.

 

[Redfish]

Disbelief in polls brought us the Karl Rove debacle on election night.

what? did you believe the polls that said Romney was going to win? you are contradicting yourself wytchey.

The polls clearly showed an Obama win going into the election. Karl Rove, Fox and the RW talking heads were so sure the pollsters had it wrong, we got the Karl Rove circus at Fox.

Such a short memory you have.

They were hoping the polls were wrong. the left wing was hoping that the polls showing romney winning were wrong. Dick Morris lost his job and his credibility because he created polls showing a romney win.

the obama pollsters did a better job of manipulating public opinion, thus obama won.

 

[Katzndogz]

If, by 2016, obama is as despised as he's moving towards being, Hillary will be seen as a continuation of the obama years. She will be required to really run against her own record as Secretary of State under obama. It's fine following a good president being connected to that success. Hillary won't have that boost. She is part of the obama regime's failure.

 

[rightwinger]

your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. go to your local library, pick up a stat 101 textbook. Look up "representative sample".

It will tell you that for a sample be significant it must be a least 5% of the population.
the pollsters have tried to come up with some mumbo jumbo by which they claim that they pull samples that include all elements of the population and thereby overcome the math.

Its bullshit, the math does not change, they cannot change it. Polls are being used to influence political opinion, not to report on it.

if you want to buy into that fraud, go right ahead.

You are assuming only a single sample is made. Multiple polls are conducted week by week. If I take a 1000 point sample one week and it shows Democrat 54% and Republican 46% and the next week it shows Republican 54% and Democrat 46% then I know that my sample is not representative of the population

But if my samples of different populations of 1000 show consistently that Democrats are maintaining a range of 52%-56%then I know I am accurately gauging the whole population with +/- 2%

LOL, as I said, if you choose to buy into the fraud, go right ahead. The math is the truth and it cannot be changed.

a rolling tiny sample does not change the need for a 5% sample

A childs view of statistical sampling

Nowhere is an absolute 5% given for all samples. In fact, the percentage drops significantly as your sample size increases.

Are you actually that statistically ignorant to believe that a sample of the US population needs to be over 15 million to be "statistically relevant" ?

 

[rightwinger]

If, by 2016, obama is as despised as he's moving towards being, Hillary will be seen as a continuation of the obama years. She will be required to really run against her own record as Secretary of State under obama. It's fine following a good president being connected to that success. Hillary won't have that boost. She is part of the obama regime's failure.

Honestly, the rightwing needs to stop talking to itself to determine how Obama is seen by the American people.

Hint: Hannity, Beck and FoxNews are not good sources to see how America views Obama. Didn't the 2012 election teach you anything?

"I heard on Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage and Levin that Obama is despised.....it seems everyone is saying it"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Disbelief in polls brought us the Karl Rove debacle on election night.

what? did you believe the polls that said Romney was going to win? you are contradicting yourself wytchey.

So who's the Republican who can win the presidency in 2016?

 

[Redfish]

You are assuming only a single sample is made. Multiple polls are conducted week by week. If I take a 1000 point sample one week and it shows Democrat 54% and Republican 46% and the next week it shows Republican 54% and Democrat 46% then I know that my sample is not representative of the population

But if my samples of different populations of 1000 show consistently that Democrats are maintaining a range of 52%-56%then I know I am accurately gauging the whole population with +/- 2%

LOL, as I said, if you choose to buy into the fraud, go right ahead. The math is the truth and it cannot be changed.

a rolling tiny sample does not change the need for a 5% sample

A childs view of statistical sampling

Nowhere is an absolute 5% given for all samples. In fact, the percentage drops significantly as your sample size increases.

Are you actually that statistically ignorant to believe that a sample of the US population needs to be over 15 million to be "statistically relevant" ?

no

wrong, are you claiming that 5% is needed for a population of 20 but not for a population of 300 million? since 5% of 20 is 1, does that give you a valid sample? of course not, the bigger the sample the more accurate the result.

yes, the math says that a 5% sample is the minimum for a statistically relevant result. the % does not go down as the population goes up.

 

[Redfish]

Disbelief in polls brought us the Karl Rove debacle on election night.

what? did you believe the polls that said Romney was going to win? you are contradicting yourself wytchey.

So who's the Republican who can win the presidency in 2016?

I don't know. who predicted that obama would win three years before the election?

 

[rightwinger]

LOL, as I said, if you choose to buy into the fraud, go right ahead. The math is the truth and it cannot be changed.

a rolling tiny sample does not change the need for a 5% sample

A childs view of statistical sampling

Nowhere is an absolute 5% given for all samples. In fact, the percentage drops significantly as your sample size increases.

Are you actually that statistically ignorant to believe that a sample of the US population needs to be over 15 million to be "statistically relevant" ?

no

wrong, are you claiming that 5% is needed for a population of 20 but not for a population of 300 million? since 5% of 20 is 1, does that give you a valid sample? of course not, the bigger the sample the more accurate the result.

yes, the math says that a 5% sample is the minimum for a statistically relevant result. the % does not go down as the population goes up.

Oh please.....just stop

Doubling down on your complete ignorance of Statistics is not helping you

 

[NYcarbineer]

what? did you believe the polls that said Romney was going to win? you are contradicting yourself wytchey.

So who's the Republican who can win the presidency in 2016?

I don't know. who predicted that obama would win three years before the election?

So you can't name anyone with a chance of beating Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. Not even someone out of the Republican establishment.

Okay.

 

[Redfish]

A childs view of statistical sampling

Nowhere is an absolute 5% given for all samples. In fact, the percentage drops significantly as your sample size increases.

Are you actually that statistically ignorant to believe that a sample of the US population needs to be over 15 million to be "statistically relevant" ?

no

wrong, are you claiming that 5% is needed for a population of 20 but not for a population of 300 million? since 5% of 20 is 1, does that give you a valid sample? of course not, the bigger the sample the more accurate the result.

yes, the math says that a 5% sample is the minimum for a statistically relevant result. the % does not go down as the population goes up.

Oh please.....just stop

Doubling down on your complete ignorance of Statistics is not helping you

LOL you make me laugh, snake jockey. the ignorance on this topic is yours. please take my advice and go check out a statistics 101 text. they do have libraries in liberalville don't they?

once you get educated on the topic you will realize that the pollster game has been fooling you.

but I doubt that you will do that since your job seems to be to post dem/lib lies and talking points and defer from any facts and reality.

 

[rightwinger]

no

wrong, are you claiming that 5% is needed for a population of 20 but not for a population of 300 million? since 5% of 20 is 1, does that give you a valid sample? of course not, the bigger the sample the more accurate the result.

yes, the math says that a 5% sample is the minimum for a statistically relevant result. the % does not go down as the population goes up.

Oh please.....just stop

Doubling down on your complete ignorance of Statistics is not helping you

LOL you make me laugh, snake jockey. the ignorance on this topic is yours. please take my advice and go check out a statistics 101 text. they do have libraries in liberalville don't they?

once you get educated on the topic you will realize that the pollster game has been fooling you.

but I doubt that you will do that since your job seems to be to post dem/lib lies and talking points and defer from any facts and reality.

You have obviously never been near a Stat 101 book

 

[Redfish]

So who's the Republican who can win the presidency in 2016?

I don't know. who predicted that obama would win three years before the election?

So you can't name anyone with a chance of beating Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. Not even someone out of the Republican establishment.

Okay.

OK, if hillybilly does not run (and she very well may not) who will the dem candidate be? who do you lefties have besides the old, dried up, shrill hag?

If I had a fail proof crystal ball, I would tell you who both parties would run, but I don't.

in truth, I think the GOP has more options than the dems at this point.

hell, there might even be a viable third party by 2016----from the left or the right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL, as I said, if you choose to buy into the fraud, go right ahead. The math is the truth and it cannot be changed.

a rolling tiny sample does not change the need for a 5% sample

A childs view of statistical sampling

Nowhere is an absolute 5% given for all samples. In fact, the percentage drops significantly as your sample size increases.

Are you actually that statistically ignorant to believe that a sample of the US population needs to be over 15 million to be "statistically relevant" ?

no

wrong, are you claiming that 5% is needed for a population of 20 but not for a population of 300 million? since 5% of 20 is 1, does that give you a valid sample? of course not, the bigger the sample the more accurate the result.

yes, the math says that a 5% sample is the minimum for a statistically relevant result. the % does not go down as the population goes up.

The final poll average, for the presidential election, is almost always accurate to within a few percentage points.

That average is composed of a sample of about 10,000 likely voters. What percent of the actual number of voters is that?

It sure as hell isn't 5%

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that the republican dream team for the next election is Trump and Bachmann.

Now, this would have been considered an insult to republicans 10 or 15 years ago, but today's republicans could really get behind them, now. I say, GO FOR IT!!!!

 

[007]

So who's the Republican who can win the presidency in 2016?

I don't know. who predicted that obama would win three years before the election?

So you can't name anyone with a chance of beating Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. Not even someone out of the Republican establishment.

Okay.

Hitlery won't even run, moron. She doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever being president.

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would be the top two republicans at this point in time, and either would wax the floor with any democrap on the planet.

After obama and the dem majority we've had for the last six years, and how bad they've FUCKED THE DOG, people are SICK of democrats. It goes back and forth, always does, probably always will. Dems will lose in '14 and the White House in '16, guaranteed.

 

[Redfish]

Oh please.....just stop

Doubling down on your complete ignorance of Statistics is not helping you

LOL you make me laugh, snake jockey. the ignorance on this topic is yours. please take my advice and go check out a statistics 101 text. they do have libraries in liberalville don't they?

once you get educated on the topic you will realize that the pollster game has been fooling you.

but I doubt that you will do that since your job seems to be to post dem/lib lies and talking points and defer from any facts and reality.

You have obviously never been near a Stat 101 book

BSBA in business administration with a minor in financial management. MBA from Harvard Business school.

I suspect I have been through more statistics books and classes than you knew existed.

statistics is not really a complicated topic. Its only made complicated when people try to justify ignoring the basic math of it.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't know. who predicted that obama would win three years before the election?

So you can't name anyone with a chance of beating Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. Not even someone out of the Republican establishment.

Okay.

Hitlery won't even run, moron. She doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever being president.

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would be the top two republicans at this point in time, and either would wax the floor with any democrap on the planet.
After obama and the dem majority we've had for the last six years, and how bad they've FUCKED THE DOG, people are SICK of democrats. It goes back and forth, always does, probably always will. Dems will lose in '14 and the White House in '16, guaranteed.

God.....I LOVE Republicans