• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Data Fudging Continues: Initial Claims Tumble


Hmm, so your argument is that the older numbers are more relevant than the newer numbers? Interesting.

Or we could look at the full trend, where Gallup showed an economic confidence rating of -55 when Obama took over, which has risen to -16 today. Here's the one-year trend:

economic%20confidence.JPG


Must be a conspiracy, right? Gallup fudging the numbers, are they?
 
Last edited:
It's holiday season. Companies always hire out thousands of interns and seasonal employees for the Holidays.

Target will be hiring between 80,000 and 90,000 seasonal temps.

Macy’s
•Plans to hire 78,000 holiday season temps, and applications are already being accepted

Kohl’s
•Between 52,000 and 53,000 holiday shopping season temps will be working at Kohl’s in 2012

Toys ‘R Us
•40,000 temporary seasonal temp jobs are already being filled

JCPenny
•Announced 35,000 temporary Christmas jobs will be filled

Party City
•Plans to hire 20,000 seasonal retail employees

Best Buy
•15,000 temporary Best Buy associates will be hire to assist Christmas shoppers
•Last year Best Buy hired 18,000 temporary Christmas season employees, which was 50% less than the year before.
 
Are you sure that the descriptor was impervious to error and not protected from political influence?
I think that in making the case against the possibility of political influence, many were overstating the accuracy of BLS predictions... which of course have a lot of error associated with them.
 
Hmm, so your argument is that the older numbers are more relevant than the newer numbers? Interesting.


Must be a conspiracy, right? Gallup fudging the numbers, are they?

First that's not my argument. Pay attention next time instead of trying to set up a laughable strawman.

Actually yes, Gallop is fudging the numbers. They've even admitted as such. Who could blame them actually when they are under attack from Axlerod and the WH

Gallup Sued by DOJ after Unfavorable Obama Polls, Employment Numbers

He called it "methodological problems"

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/192333709159047168

So what happened?

Jay Cost | The Weekly Standard

Huffpo sets up the false narrative

Race Matters: Why Gallup Poll Finds Less Support For President Obama

Unusual. So, what's going on? Alan Abramowitz of Huffington Post and The Democratic Strategist noticed that Gallup has increased its share of nonwhites from 27 percent the week of the convention to 32 percent last week, a nearly 20 percent boost. In other words, Gallup seemed to have tweaked its methodology with just weeks to go until Election Day to reflect the criticism that has come from the left.

Gallop confirms the shift

Gallup.Com - Polling Matters by Frank Newport: Survey Methods, Complex and Ever Evolving

As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures. We increased the proportion of cell phones in our tracking to 50%, meaning that we now complete interviews with 50% cell phones and 50% landlines each night. This marks a shift from our Gallup Daily tracking, which has previously been 40% cell phones. This means that our weights to various phone targets in the sample can be smaller, given that the actual percentage of cell phones and cell-phone-only respondents in the sample is higher. We have instituted some slight changes in our weighting procedures, including a weight for the density of the population area in which the respondent lives. Although all Gallup surveys are weighted consistently to census targets on demographic parameters, we believe that these improvements provide a more consistent match with weight targets.

Have a nice day :2wave:
 

No where in the Gallup link did they mention increasing non-whites. They only changed how many they called via cellphones.

"As has always been the case, we do not attempt to weight the composition of the likely voter sample in any way -- such as by political party or race or age -- to approximate some guess of what we or others think it should look like demographically on Election Day"

Fail.
 
No where in the Gallup link did they mention increasing non-whites. They only changed how many they called via cellphones.

"As has always been the case, we do not attempt to weight the composition of the likely voter sample in any way -- such as by political party or race or age -- to approximate some guess of what we or others think it should look like demographically on Election Day"

Fail.

Um you tried to selectively quote information to setup a strawman. Here is what you left out.

We have instituted some slight changes in our weighting procedures, including a weight for the density of the population area in which the respondent lives. Although all Gallup surveys are weighted consistently to census targets on demographic parameters, we believe that these improvements provide a more consistent match with weight targets.

Fail
 
Um you tried to selectively quote information to setup a strawman. Here is what you left out.



Fail

Your quote doesn't say anything about increasing non-whites. Another fail.
 
Your quote doesn't say anything about increasing non-whites. Another fail.

This means that our weights to various phone targets in the sample can be smaller, given that the actual percentage of cell phones and cell-phone-only respondents in the sample is higher. We have instituted some slight changes in our weighting procedures, including a weight for the density of the population area in which the respondent lives. Although all Gallup surveys are weighted consistently to census targets on demographic parameters, we believe that these improvements provide a more consistent match with weight targets.

Dodge noted

Also look at my OP. It was HuffPo that injected race. A liberal Source

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ack-obama_n_1589937.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster

The Huffington Post has conducted an independent analysis that confirms the phenomenon and points to a likely explanation. The problem lies in the way that Gallup handles the racial composition of its samples, and the findings highlight significant issues with how polls are developed and conducted today.

The dirty little secret of telephone surveys now conducted by most media outlets is that their unweighted samples alone cannot provide reliable estimates of population demographics like race and Hispanic ancestry. A dramatic fall in response rates has led to what pollsters call "non-response bias" in their raw data. Partly because survey response rates are typically lowest in urban areas, unweighted samples routinely under-represent black and Hispanic Americans.
 
Dodge noted

Also look at my OP. It was HuffPo that injected race. A liberal Source

Race Matters: Why Gallup Poll Finds Less Support For President Obama

And still, you have not established that Gallup made the change to increase minority representation. Like most conservatives you don't seem to understand how polling works. The fact is that pollsters like Gallup have ALWAYS weighted their samples based on demographics. So, for example, if they conduct a poll and only five percent of the respondents are black, and the census shows that 10% are black in the population as a whole, then the black responses will be given extra weight. If, OTOH, the sample is composed of 20% blacks, the black responses will be underweighted accordingly.

Thus, if they make a change that could increase the number of blacks in the sample, it doesn't really matter. It will just mean that black responses are less likely to be given extra weight. The idea is to come as close to the census demographics as possible in order to minimize the need for weighting.

Capiche?
 
And still, you have not established that Gallup made the change to increase minority representation. Like most conservatives you don't seem to understand how polling works. The fact is that pollsters like Gallup have ALWAYS weighted their samples based on demographics. So, for example, if they conduct a poll and only five percent of the respondents are black, and the census shows that 10% are black in the population as a whole, then the black responses will be given extra weight. If, OTOH, the sample is composed of 20% blacks, the black responses will be underweighted accordingly.

Thus, if they make a change that could increase the number of blacks in the sample, it doesn't really matter. It will just mean that black responses are less likely to be given extra weight. The idea is to come as close to the census demographics as possible in order to minimize the need for weighting.

Capiche?


So IOW, if it's over sampled then ok, leave it alone, but if it's under sampled then add to it to bring it up? How reliable can that be?
 
So IOW, if it's over sampled then ok, leave it alone, but if it's under sampled then add to it to bring it up? How reliable can that be?

Err, no, that's exactly NOT what I said. They adjust the weighting whether it's oversampled or undersampled. They weight the sample to make it conform to the national averages. The reason for the change is to try and get their sample closer to the national average so less weighting is necessary. That should make the results more accurate.
 
The number is artificially low right now. Call it whatever you want... anomaly, fudging, conspiracy, accounting error... who cares. If the Republicans make too big of a deal out of it they're going to look like they actually WANT high unemployment. If the Democrats try to spike the football and say... "See!!! Told ya so!!" ...they risk looking like idiots if the next number goes back above 8%. The way I see it, both parties better walk a pretty thin line.

It will NOT go back up above 8% until after the election. THere is no way the Obama admin will allow an unemployment number above 8% be reported - they would burn down the BLS first.

This entire thing has been calculated to provide the right number at the right time. This will not be allowed to be reversed. This is the way the marxist mind works, and they don't even feel bad about it. To them the truth is whatever advances their agenda.

One only has to consider that the population has grown since Bush left office and that there are substantially FEWER people who have a job now than they did then and that a HUGE percentage of those jobs are either part-time, temporary, or government hires.

The private sector has taken it in the gut by this administration. The middle class is under constant attack - with the gambit that they are going after the super rich. Hell, the super rich cannot be hurt regardless of what the government does. They can always just move to one of their homes in Tahiti or somewhere and laugh at Obama.

Who the real target is here is the middle-class. It is the middle class who overwhelmingly vote GOP. That is the problem as seen by Obama - too many of them GOPers out there. The middle class do the hard work, produce what the nation needs.

If Obama can just get them into the welfare system then he will have no problem getting anything he wants passed. Obama wants a poverty stricken nation that is dependent on government handouts for their daily existence. Obama doesn't care that such nations exist and they are all third-world status. That is what he wants.

In a productive America it is the IDEAs that are debated to see who rules. In third world countries the strong man takes all he wants and leaves whatever is left for the poor to struggle for. The strong man doesn't care if they are all starving. He wants it that way. If they are too busy trying to stay alive, they won't have much time or energy to organize or participate in a revolution.

Enjoy your handiwork liberals - you are the enablers, if you win.
 
Err, no, that's exactly NOT what I said. They adjust the weighting whether it's oversampled or undersampled. They weight the sample to make it conform to the national averages. The reason for the change is to try and get their sample closer to the national average so less weighting is necessary. That should make the results more accurate.


Ok, my mistake, I see it now...So, by using what you are saying then, in '08 the democrat turn out was a +6 over McCain Nationally. So, now tell me why some polls have their weighting as high as +11?
 
It will NOT go back up above 8% until after the election. THere is no way the Obama admin will allow an unemployment number above 8% be reported - they would burn down the BLS first.
LOL! What a clown, guess they've been asleep at the wheel for around a few years huh?
 
Last edited:
People are fortunately becoming quite immune to the constant shell game of numbers.

We know the truth. We live it. We can feel it. The multiples of unemployed people know they're still unemployed and not getting offers, regardless of what number is pulled out of a hat.
Hey, too bad Obama didn't think of this years ago, huh? He could have kept the unemployment rate under 8% all this time. :thumbs:
 
What a horrible thing to say. And quite telling on the rank partisanship factor as well.
Nope, not horrible; and rather quite accurate. That's why the right looks for the dark clouds in every piece of good news that comes out these days. And when they can't find a dark cloud, they make one up out of whole cloth, like this nonsense about the BLS fudging numbers.
 
Nope, not horrible; and rather quite accurate. That's why the right looks for the dark clouds in every piece of good news that comes out these days. And when they can't find a dark cloud, they make one up out of whole cloth, like this nonsense about the BLS fudging numbers.


give it a year or so, and it'll be you creating storm clouds on a sunny day...Politics is so hypocritical.
 
give it a year or so, and it'll be you creating storm clouds on a sunny day...Politics is so hypocritical.
No, good news for America will still be bad news for Conservative.

You're gonna have to wait for a Republican president. That will not be the case in a year or so.
 
No, good news for America will still be bad news for Conservative.

You're gonna have to wait for a Republican president. That will not be the case in a year or so.


Crystal ball? I think you're wrong about that.
 
This was done to get the number into the 7 category.
And Obama's conglomerate called PRAVDA USA spread the lies feverishly.
And so continues the GOP's war with reality. Romney's down in the polls? Oh no, it's a secret conspiracy. Let's loudly regurgitate a bunch of psuedo-intellectual criticism about a topic we know absolutely nothing about while we cup our hands over our ears. Oh wait, the polls have shifted? Um.. I guess they're right now.

Unemployment numbers increase despite strong job growth, well that's just the way it is. Those number are the gospel truth! Besides, the job growth numbers are probably false. Wait! What's this???? oh no! The economy's NOT in the tank? The unemployment number is dropping?? CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY! Let me regurgitate more garbage that I heard on the radio from a snake oil salesman.

Let's just say that it's a bit of an uphill fight to convince others of the validity of your positions when you sound like a paranoid schizophrenic.

Besides, there's no need to worry about such trifling details. Mitt Romney is actually president of the United States right now. In fact, he's been president for 20 years. The very notion that Barak Obama is president right now is just a conspiracy by the mainstream media.
 
Back
Top Bottom