Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[Redfish]

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

The polls said no such thing.

were you unconscious during 2016?

 

[AntonToo]

Yes they did
And the totally missed the recent shift in Midwest states

so you now agree that the polls were flawed, back to where we started. You originally claimed that they got it right------remember?

The national polls were within 1 point of the 2016 result. That is not 'meaningless'.

already explained many times. creating a poll that comes close to the outcome is not the same as creating a poll that is statistically significant. Math vs propaganda.

How can you create a poll that comes close to the outcome if you don't know the outcome?

everyone in the world knew the election would be very close. Anyone could say "I just did a poll and the election of 2016 will be within a 5% margin of victory.

How many times must you be told? the pollsters are paid to influence public opinion by putting out polls that support the goal of the person or group paying them, or their personal goals and desires. You are being played, wake up.

Ignoranus, polling companies make or break their reputation on ACCURACY stemming from SOUND, SCIENTIFIC APPROACH.

You can take your vast conspiracy theory spreading and shove it up your ass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

The polls said no such thing.

were you unconscious during 2016?

Prove me wrong.

Show me the polls that PREDICTED a Clinton landslide.

Show me the polls that said Trump had no path to 270.

Show me the polls that said Trump would not win the nomination.

 

[Redfish]

so you now agree that the polls were flawed, back to where we started. You originally claimed that they got it right------remember?

The national polls were within 1 point of the 2016 result. That is not 'meaningless'.

already explained many times. creating a poll that comes close to the outcome is not the same as creating a poll that is statistically significant. Math vs propaganda.

How can you create a poll that comes close to the outcome if you don't know the outcome?

everyone in the world knew the election would be very close. Anyone could say "I just did a poll and the election of 2016 will be within a 5% margin of victory.

How many times must you be told? the pollsters are paid to influence public opinion by putting out polls that support the goal of the person or group paying them, or their personal goals and desires. You are being played, wake up.

Ignoranus, polling companies make or break their reputation on ACCURACY stemming from SOUND, SCIENTIFIC APPROACH.

You can take your vast conspiracy theory spreading and shove it up your ass.

try to pay attention. I fully understand how and why the pollsters do as they do. Its fine, they have a role in national politics. But to pretend that what they do is statistically valid is simply not true. Please pick up a stat 101 text book and educate yourself a little bit. the mathematics of statistics is an absolute science. The pollsters stretch that science in order to make their jobs easier by using tiny samples.

It is also true that most of the national pollsters have an agenda beyond simple polling and reporting. If you don't understand that, you are very naïve.

I am tired of explaining this. Do some research.

 

[Redfish]

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

The polls said no such thing.

were you unconscious during 2016?

Prove me wrong.

Show me the polls that PREDICTED a Clinton landslide.

Show me the polls that said Trump had no path to 270.

Show me the polls that said Trump would not win the nomination.

those were media conclusions based on polls, with a large helping of media bias thrown in. They were all wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

 

[pinqy]

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

 

[Faun]

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

No, but they can make up numbers, which is what you're doing. No mathematician on Earth claims a sample size of 3-5 percent is required for accurate polling. Nowhere near, in fact. You're off by about 4 decimal places.

 

[Faun]

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

Please stop talking statistics........you are embarrassing yourself

True, but he embarrasses himself no matter what the topic.

 

[Faun]

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

No, they didn't. You were shown they predicted she would win the popular vote by 2.1 points and she did. Now stop lying.

 

[Faun]

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

The polls said no such thing.

were you unconscious during 2016?

Prove me wrong.

Show me the polls that PREDICTED a Clinton landslide.

Show me the polls that said Trump had no path to 270.

Show me the polls that said Trump would not win the nomination.

those were media conclusions based on polls, with a large helping of media bias thrown in. They were all wrong.

So after lying by claiming the polls said that, you now admit it was the media and not the polls.

The polls, on average, nailed it.

 

[Redfish]

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

No, but they can make up numbers, which is what you're doing. No mathematician on Earth claims a sample size of 3-5 percent is required for accurate polling. Nowhere near, in fact. You're off by about 4 decimal places.

four decimal places? so in your small mind a sample of .0005% is statistically meaningful? Amazing.

 

[Redfish]

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

No, they didn't. You were shown they predicted she would win the popular vote by 2.1 points and she did. Now stop lying.

no dipshit, they said she would win the ELECTION, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

 

[Redfish]

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

Please stop talking statistics........you are embarrassing yourself

True, but he embarrasses himself no matter what the topic.

LOL, its you and your butt buddy winger who should be embarrassed. Your stupidity is legend on this message board. You two are a source of continuous hilarity. In short, you are jokes and you are too dumb to know it.

 

[Redfish]

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

The polls said no such thing.

were you unconscious during 2016?

Prove me wrong.

Show me the polls that PREDICTED a Clinton landslide.

Show me the polls that said Trump had no path to 270.

Show me the polls that said Trump would not win the nomination.

those were media conclusions based on polls, with a large helping of media bias thrown in. They were all wrong.

So after lying by claiming the polls said that, you now admit it was the media and not the polls.

The polls, on average, nailed it.

wake the **** up. the media and the pollsters are the same people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

No, they didn't. You were shown they predicted she would win the popular vote by 2.1 points and she did. Now stop lying.

no dipshit, they said she would win the ELECTION, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Name the polls, cite the numbers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

No, but they can make up numbers, which is what you're doing. No mathematician on Earth claims a sample size of 3-5 percent is required for accurate polling. Nowhere near, in fact. You're off by about 4 decimal places.

four decimal places? so in your small mind a sample of .0005% is statistically meaningful? Amazing.

If it wasn't statistically meaningful then there would have been polls saying that Trump was the unanimous choice, or had zero support.

 

[Faun]

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

No, but they can make up numbers, which is what you're doing. No mathematician on Earth claims a sample size of 3-5 percent is required for accurate polling. Nowhere near, in fact. You're off by about 4 decimal places.

four decimal places? so in your small mind a sample of .0005% is statistically meaningful? Amazing.

LOLOL

No, not just in my mind... in the minds of skilled mathematicians who claim scientific polling is accurate to within a small margin of error, 95% of the time.

 

[Faun]

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

No, they didn't. You were shown they predicted she would win the popular vote by 2.1 points and she did. Now stop lying.

no dipshit, they said she would win the ELECTION, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

You're such an imbecile. Some in the media were saying that. The polls weren't. During the last few days leading up to Election Day, not a single poll predicted an electoral victory for either candidate. Nationally they predicted Hillary would win the popular vote, on average, by 2.1 points -- which she did.

 

[Faun]

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

Please stop talking statistics........you are embarrassing yourself

True, but he embarrasses himself no matter what the topic.

LOL, its you and your butt buddy winger who should be embarrassed. Your stupidity is legend on this message board. You two are a source of continuous hilarity. In short, you are jokes and you are too dumb to know it.

Aww, I'm a legend to you? Thank you.