No, no, no. You said, "When these polls show a slight lead of 5% in favor of the Republican, the real lead is probably 10%, or well more than that." You made the statement, a bunch of personal, anecdotal silliness is not evidence. I have my Masters and taught for over a decade, so I would know better than to babble on about first hand "evidence" You need to be more careful, fellow Trumpsters don't know any better than to believe your every word cause you claim to actually have been on a university campus. Oh, and on TV, that is proof.
I have posted more
evidence at one time, than anyone in the history of this forum >>
Post 816.....817....818.....819......820
Is there a doctor in the house ? I mean really. Me too. Where is the evidence the election was stolen?
www.usmessageboard.com
But everything has it's place. To say universities are places of ultraliberalism, and thus polls there would reflect this, needs no evidence. But liberals trained/programmed in these bastions of conditioning are unaccepting of anything outside of their presribed methodologies.
Blinded by ritual, unable to work alongside simple general knowledge of everyday life, these robots would command their all sacred "studies" that they worship, if the subject matter was to determine "if" fish could swim.
Many things that you refer to as "anecdotal silliness", by far surpass the oh so grand "studies" you revere so much, that are 100% capable of being vulnerable to partisan damages, and often weak.
Would you like an example ?
Liberal "research" has too many times been shown to be BS. Here's a classic example >>>
The Stephens-Davidowitz "racism" study : in this farce, published as undeniable in the
New York Times, it was contended that some places in the US were more racist than other places. The study contended that because 57% of Denver, CO,
voted for Obama in 2008, and only 48% of Wheeling WV did, that Wheeling was the 7th most "racist" city in America, while Denver was the 4th most “enlightened” city.
Problems here are twofold. First, in places like the Times, the only 1 dimension at play was Obama's race. The Stephens-Davidowitz study failed to consider that Obama was the most fabulous, celebrity-backed candidate for president in a long time - something more important to people in Denver, than in West Virginia.
Secondly, on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before the election, Obama vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. He threatened to impose huge fines on coal companies for emissions of greenhouse gases. West Virginia's economy is 99% (energy) and 60% (business taxes) dependent on coal. The real way to test Stephens-Davidowitz theory about West Virginians would be to run a non-flashy black candidate who had not pledged to destroy the coal industry, and THEN compare votes.
Here's an alternative to the faulty Stephens-Davidowitz study that the New York Times admired so much >> A conservative writer did a study on states' inclinations to racism, also. In that study, different states were compared by
participation in the military - an institution with a
high level of close quarter racial mixing, jaw to jaw, in military barracks (hell for racists).
The least racist states were Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, and Idaho. The most racist ones were Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
As for TV, it can be 'Silliness'or it can be a very serious well-designed study of peoples' opinions. All depends on how it's done. The ones I saw were done well, and with surveys on TV, it's easy to ascertain if it is done honestly and the responses are real. There is less room for fakery than in the most esteemed studies in which we dont see the actual respondents.
I dont budge one inch from what I said in Post # 128 & # 130. If your definition of "evidence" is more narrow and unaccepting than my broader definition, I only say, Not My Problem.
No charge for the tutoring.
