- Jan 19, 2010
- 83,692
- 84,108
- 3,605
Keep dreaming...
Why most conservatives don't trust the MSM...
- Thread starter healthmyths
- Start date
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Spits the idiot who applauds trump for taking us towards our first $2 trillion deficit.[
Adding a trillion dollars of debt per year (on top of the existing debt increases) is your idea of making America great again?
America is already great. This is just ******* us over.
Oh yeah, you totally care about the debt.
We saw you Stalinist ***** decrying the $10 trillion in debt Obama racked up.
Oh wait.
You Marxists are such ******* frauds...
Yeah, you Marxists are such deficit hawks.
I remember just how much you condemned ISIS Barry.
Oh wait, that never happened.
Nah, you're just a little commie **** spewing shit because you think you can hurt America.
See the thing is Li'l Kim, I did condemn the latest heist by Congress - as I have condemned all of the bullshit through the Obama regime, as I condemned the bullshit under Dubya.
You are just a little commie scum, you have no integrity - actually you are an agent of hostile foreign government, a North Korean spy. But even if you were just a Marxist democrat, you would still be a ******* fraud.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Keep deflecting, moron.
Yeah, because the Stormy Daniels thing totally worked. You really got the Trump base to turn on him...
Or something...
******* commies, dumb as dog shit....
What am I deflecting, Li'l Kim? The utter failure of your attempt to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters?
Nah, I want to blast that from the rooftops. You filthy ***** are losers. 60 Minutes put on a bad impression of Howard Stern and no one gave a shit except you resist motherfuckers. You changed not a single mind.
You Communists already hated Trump, almost as much as you hate America.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
You're going to change your chant from "derp?"
But you're doing so well, Li'l Kim.....
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 119,334
- 3,635
Yes, that’s right. It’s a mid-term election and trump isn’t running, ya moron. Any votes he gets are cast by abject imbeciles.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Yet you North Koreans will still probably stuff the ballot boxes for Hillary, just as you did in the last election....
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 119,334
- 3,635
LOLOL4% unemployment and heading down...bank account heading up...GNP going up...border wall going up...swamp draining down...Spits the idiot who applauds trump for taking us towards our first $2 trillion deficit.
Only a ******* moron like you could possibly credit trump’s tax cuts for the 4% unemployment rate. Here, I had to magnify the period since his tax cuts went into effect because it’s such a small part of the total drop in unemployment...
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 119,334
- 3,635
That’s because Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit along with a massive recession and falling revenue which added to it. Whereas Obama handed trump a good economy with rising revenue. There’s no reason for s $2 trillion deficit in a good economy.Spits the idiot who applauds trump for taking us towards our first $2 trillion deficit.[
Adding a trillion dollars of debt per year (on top of the existing debt increases) is your idea of making America great again?
America is already great. This is just ******* us over.
Oh yeah, you totally care about the debt.
We saw you Stalinist ***** decrying the $10 trillion in debt Obama racked up.
Oh wait.
You Marxists are such ******* frauds...
Yeah, you Marxists are such deficit hawks.
I remember just how much you condemned ISIS Barry.
Oh wait, that never happened.
Nah, you're just a little commie **** spewing shit because you think you can hurt America.
See the thing is Li'l Kim, I did condemn the latest heist by Congress - as I have condemned all of the bullshit through the Obama regime, as I condemned the bullshit under Dubya.
You are just a little commie scum, you have no integrity - actually you are an agent of hostile foreign government, a North Korean spy. But even if you were just a Marxist democrat, you would still be a ******* fraud.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 119,334
- 3,635
How are you deflecting??? Just how ******* senile are you, gramps? You’re injecting Stormy Daniels into a debate about the economy.Keep deflecting, moron.
Yeah, because the Stormy Daniels thing totally worked. You really got the Trump base to turn on him...
Or something...
******* commies, dumb as dog shit....
What am I deflecting, Li'l Kim? The utter failure of your attempt to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters?
Nah, I want to blast that from the rooftops. You filthy ***** are losers. 60 Minutes put on a bad impression of Howard Stern and no one gave a shit except you resist motherfuckers. You changed not a single mind.
You Communists already hated Trump, almost as much as you hate America.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 119,334
- 3,635
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
LOLOL4% unemployment and heading down...bank account heading up...GNP going up...border wall going up...swamp draining down...Spits the idiot who applauds trump for taking us towards our first $2 trillion deficit.
Only a ******* moron like you could possibly credit trump’s tax cuts for the 4% unemployment rate. Here, I had to magnify the period since his tax cuts went into effect because it’s such a small part of the total drop in unemployment...
Poor Fawn, he hates it when America does well.
Hey, your dictator is going to meet with Trump. Will Un suck Trump's cock?
Yeah, he sure will - that's just the way you North Koreans roll.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Right, but when ISIS barry turned it over to Trump the budget was balanced...
Oh wait, Barry added $10 trillion to the debt and massively increased the deficit.
Li'l Kim, you may be a fraud and a liar, but hey, at least you're a worthless pile of shit.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
How are you deflecting??? Just how ******* senile are you, gramps? You’re injecting Stormy Daniels into a debate about the economy.Keep deflecting, moron.
Yeah, because the Stormy Daniels thing totally worked. You really got the Trump base to turn on him...
Or something...
******* commies, dumb as dog shit....
What am I deflecting, Li'l Kim? The utter failure of your attempt to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters?
Nah, I want to blast that from the rooftops. You filthy ***** are losers. 60 Minutes put on a bad impression of Howard Stern and no one gave a shit except you resist motherfuckers. You changed not a single mind.
You Communists already hated Trump, almost as much as you hate America.
Oh, *I* brought up Daniels...
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
[
LOL
You’re such a ******* loon.
You need to watch more MSM, not less.
Yeah, it did wonders for you, ya mindless fuckwad...
- Jan 19, 2010
- 83,692
- 84,108
- 3,605
Overall, do you approve or disapprove of President Trump's job performance?
Approve
303,305(55%)
Disapprove
238,910(44%)
Do you approve or disapprove of President Trump’s handling of foreign policy and the war on terror?
Approve
306,782(56%)
Disapprove
236,221(43%)
Do you approve of his job handling the U.S. economy?
Approve
311,439(57%)
Disapprove
227,233(42%)
Do you approve of his handling of immigration?
Approve
304,602(56%)
Disapprove
235,142(43%)
Read Newsmax Article: Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here!
Approve
303,305(55%)
Disapprove
238,910(44%)
Do you approve or disapprove of President Trump’s handling of foreign policy and the war on terror?
Approve
306,782(56%)
Disapprove
236,221(43%)
Do you approve of his job handling the U.S. economy?
Approve
311,439(57%)
Disapprove
227,233(42%)
Do you approve of his handling of immigration?
Approve
304,602(56%)
Disapprove
235,142(43%)
Read Newsmax Article: Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here!
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Do you think Kim Jong Un will have Fawn beaten, or take away 2 out of 3 of his grains of rice for the week, over this failure to sway America against Trump?
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #97
They prefer to get their "gospel Truth", from Wikileaks!
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
You people are just ******* crazy, that’s the reason. Even after it’s explained, you still can’t understand.
Here, maybe this can help you?
Why You Shouldn’t Trust ‘Polls’ Conducted Online
The report shows that the mainstream polls oversample an average of 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans and the results skew anti-Trump. The result is that it robs Trump of about 8 points in his approval ratings, from 46 percent to 38 percent, it said.
"In every poll, Democrat respondents outnumbered Republicans by significant amounts.
The Economist poll was the worst.
Only 24 percent of respondents (360) were Republicans compared to 38 percent (570) Democrats – which means that 58 percent more Democrats were polled than Republicans, as shown in the %D/R column.
On average, in these seven widely recognized national polls, only 29 percent (409 people) of the total 1,383 polled were Republicans, while 37 percent (518) were Democrats. Another way of saying it is that, on average, 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans were polled," wrote James Simpson, an economist, businessman and journalist.
'Fraud': Mainstream polls use 29% more Democrats than Republicans
It is consistently the way pollsters influence public opinion which influences politicians that make policies that affect all our lives.
It is wrong and only through educating more people that the MSM IS biased that headlines/30 second sound bites should be questioned and NOT believed!
I've constantly used the example "Trump anti-immigrant" and as this Google search shows..
Look at the headlines.."Trump's Anti-Immigrant Racism"... "Anti-Immigrant Agenda"...
Why don't they be honest and use the accurate word "ILLEGAL"?
With those biased headlines the MSM doesn't seem to realize they are not only calling Trump "anti-immigrant" (who by the way has a LEGAL Immigrant for a wife who like millions of
"LEGAL" immigrants like relatives of mine renounced their country's citizenship to become Americans!) The MSM seems to forget that over 90 million Americans like me or like my "LEGAL" immigrant relatives are grossly offended and consequently DISBELIEVE anything the MSM puts out because these 90 million plus Trump ARE NOT ANTI-IMMIGRANT!
View attachment 185485
Technical Background:
- Random Sampling: As goes humans, merely obtaining a random sample of them is damn near impossible these days because almost nobody other perhaps than the IRS, the Social Security Admin., and/or each states voter registration databases have the information needed to produce a random sample of American voters. ("Back in the day," Ma Bell probably had the needed info. The USPS also had the data, but now that we don't all use postal mail in the ways it used to be used, it may not.) People self-selecting to participate in a survey is not a random sample of people.
To get a random sample of any population, each member of a population must be uniquely identifiable and members of that population are chosen using a random selection method.
Think of it like this:- Population consists of 1000 marbles ("voters") in a tray (the country). Each marble has a number on it, a unique identifier (perhaps a SSN) and a thin exterior coat of paint preventing one from seeing inside. Each marbles interior is either red (pro-life), blue (pro-choice) and green (pro something other than life or choice), but nobody knows how many marbles (people) of each center-color (stance or frame of mind) are in the bag. One can either examine (remove the paint) every marble to know its interior color or one can examine a sample of them and infer the distribution of interior colors within the population based on its distribution in the sample. (The inference may in fact be "off," but it will be "off" only in accordance with the limits given by a survey's confidence interval, confidence level, and sample size.)
If one wants a +/-10 margin of error and a 95% confidence level, one needs a sample containing 88 marbles. How can one choose the marbles so that that one's prediction will be as accurate as the parameters noted in the prior sentence?- When the marbles are too big to put them all in one place and just draw numbers from a hat, one needs a way to choose them. One way to do that is as follows:
- Let's say one has a pair of 500-sided dice. One could put the dice in a bag, shake the bag, let the marbles fall out, and sum the up-face pips shown on each die and the retrieve that marble from the tray and wipe it off to see what color is inside.
- That works for randomly selecting 88 of 1000 marbles that all look alike. But we're talking about random selection of humans, and we all know that myriad things could inspire one (grabbing names from the hat) to choose individuals in just about any way that isn't purely random. The other part of the problem is that, for the U.S., there are 300M+ humans. Each of us has a unique identifier, but only a few organizations have access to everybody's unique identifiers. (That gap can be readily enough overcome, but nobody has yet seen fit to do so.)
- When the marbles are too big to put them all in one place and just draw numbers from a hat, one needs a way to choose them. One way to do that is as follows:
- Population consists of 1000 marbles ("voters") in a tray (the country). Each marble has a number on it, a unique identifier (perhaps a SSN) and a thin exterior coat of paint preventing one from seeing inside. Each marbles interior is either red (pro-life), blue (pro-choice) and green (pro something other than life or choice), but nobody knows how many marbles (people) of each center-color (stance or frame of mind) are in the bag. One can either examine (remove the paint) every marble to know its interior color or one can examine a sample of them and infer the distribution of interior colors within the population based on its distribution in the sample. (The inference may in fact be "off," but it will be "off" only in accordance with the limits given by a survey's confidence interval, confidence level, and sample size.)
- Non-random sampling methods: Non-random sampling is called "non-probability" sampling. Unlike random sampling, every member of the underlying population doesn't have an equal (mathematically/probabilistically) chance of participating, i.e., in becoming a member of the sample group. A couple examples:
- Internet survey
- Excludes Internet non-users.
- Excludes Internet users who do not visit the sites at which the survey is made available.
- Depending on the sites offering the survey, certain geographies may be effectively excluded even if not technically so.
- Landline telephone survey
- Introduces bias due to time of day respondents are called.
- Eligible respondents have to have a land line. How many young adults do? Not one of my kids has a landline.
- Internet survey
Specific points from your post:
- The McLaughlin & Associates "report" is an editorial blog post, not a research report. It is a repost of a blog post that was posted initially by an outfit called BombThrowers. Research reports fully expose their methodology, as did, for example, the report to which you linked in your OP.
Careful readers will observe the post appears in McLaughlin's "News" section, which is merely the place McLaughlin shares content in which it is mentioned. In other words, it's McLaughlin's section promoting itself by identifying instances in which various writers have mentioned their name.
Careful readers will note too that the essay's author is not a McLaughlin employee. The essay has quotes from a McLaughlin employee.
- The McLaughlin & Associates blog post remarks on other groups' surveys. For anyone to confirm the veracity of McLaughlin's claims, McLaughlin would have to uniquely identify each other group's poll so that readers can review the methodology of those polls.
- Reading the McLaughlin & Associates blog post, one observes that Simpson makes no mention of techniques that surveyors use to account for known incongruities between a sample set and the population from which the sample is drawn. The techniques collectively are called "weighting."
To be credible, Simpson would at least need to discuss the weighting techniques those polls used, but, he's got an "axe to grind," and judging by his "CV" of sorts, he knows damn well that sampling/polling methodology is already arcane to most folks and that weighting concepts and applications are even more abstruse
That "public issue" pollsters are almost always forced to conduct non-random samples is precisely what he's getting at and it's precisely why above I discussed weighting and provided a link to a document that explains weighting.
If one's sampling method is not random:- One must determine whether the sample's products, the preliminary results, need to be weighted.
- If they must be weighted, weight them. It's really that simple. To do otherwise is to present flawed results. [1]
- one's final results cannot be said credibly to be representationally faithful in accordance with one's claimed confidence interval and confidence level. Pretty much any publicly available social opinion poll that aims to describe, in some form or fashion, the U.S. population in general has to have its results weighted to remove the bias inherent in the non-random sampling method used.
- One must determine whether the sample's products, the preliminary results, need to be weighted.
I can't say what one would do, but I can speak to what is sound to do given the theorems of probability and statistics. Only in one instance should one expect what Simpson notes, and that if and only if:- One's sampling method is indeed random, or is aptly weighted if not random, and
- The sample size is appropriate to the confidence level and confidence interval, and
- One's confidence interval doesn't introduce enough error potential to invalidate the legitimacy of such an expectation, and
- The sample one obtained is one that happened within the confidence level [2], and
- The actual distribution in the population as a whole is such that there are "roughly equivalent numbers of Republicans and Democrats."
It's true that they won't; however, reputable pollsters will expose their methodology, so readers/(potential) dependers-on the poll's results can know how credible and representationally faithful the poll is or isn't and, in turn, make an informed decision about whether to cite/rely on the poll.
Tell me you didn't let that man insult your intelligence by actually believing what he wrote.
Voter registration is verified by determining whether a given voter has a valid voter registration card, certificate, stamp, whatever. There is noting in any Census Bureau estimate that's going to indicate to a pollster or anyone else whether "Miss Main Street," the woman one is currently querying, is or is not a registered voter.
James Simpson is so full of sh*t I'd wager his eyes are brown. I've been writing this post off and on (a minute or two at a time) all day. It took so long because just about every sentence that Simpson wrote himself has a misrepresentation of fact or context in it. I finally got tired of clicking back to this post....
Note:
- FWIW, my master's thesis used sampling. Had I not weighted my results to account for known variabilities, I'd have received a failing grade for it, even though the thesis had nothing to do with statistics or probability.. Why? Because everything I was asserting, inferring, and concluding depended on the legitimacy of my sampling methods and their results. That's how important weighting is, yet Simpson made zero mention of it, just barely alluding to it, but giving no credence or mention to whether the pollsters he cites in his essay used any weighting techniques, let alone how they applied them. (Occasionally, one'll see the term "randomized" sample. "Randomized" means weighted. Upon seeing that word, one knows immediately that one must -- as opposed to having to discover in some other way that one must --check the weighting methodology as well as the "baseline" sampling methodology.)
- At, say, a 95% confidence level for a random sample, if one conducted one's survey 100 times, 95 of the surveys will produce results that correspond to the population as a whole; however, five of one's sames will not. Put another way, a 95% confidence level says that one is 95% sure that the survey results fall within the range of the confidence interval.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 119,334
- 3,635
LOLOL4% unemployment and heading down...bank account heading up...GNP going up...border wall going up...swamp draining down...Spits the idiot who applauds trump for taking us towards our first $2 trillion deficit.
Only a ******* moron like you could possibly credit trump’s tax cuts for the 4% unemployment rate. Here, I had to magnify the period since his tax cuts went into effect because it’s such a small part of the total drop in unemployment...
Poor Fawn, he hates it when America does well.
Hey, your dictator is going to meet with Trump. Will Un suck Trump's cock?
Yeah, he sure will - that's just the way you North Koreans roll.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Where you Stalinists prefer "MuellerLeaks"
Say, ever notice that 99% of the shit Mueller leaks to the press turns out to be bullshit? Almost as if Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada were engaging in an outright disinformation campaign as part of the attempted coup he is staging....
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Can some Conservatives List All of the Nations That We're At War with--or Are At War With the US?- Started by candycorn
- Replies: 2
-
Mamdani’s wife liked social media posts celebrating October 7
- Started by Lisa558
- Replies: 0
-
Everyone that thinks they are safe from US attack please take one step forward.- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 3
-
