• 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!

Trump 'didn't expect' to get laughed at while speaking at the UN

TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that the actual voting results were within the margins of error of the results that almost all of the polls were reporting?

Do you know what "margin of error" actually means?

Did you know that almost all of the widely publicized polls were reporting on a "national poll" basis? (Because those are easy to do and the public thinks that it understands them.)

Did you know that a "national poll" is almost useless in predicting the actual result in individual polling districts?

Did you know that the Presidency of the United States of America is NOT decided on a "national poll" basis?

Those people who claimed to predict the outcome of the Electoral College selection process by using "national poll" results should be investigated for their potential use of hallucinogenic substances in public.

Did you know that NONE of the "national" POLLS reported anything other than the percentage of voters nationwide that favoured particular candidates?

Did you know that it was the people who ANALYZED the results of the "national" polls who told you that those polls said something that they didn't actually say?

People who think that a poll conducted today is going to tell you what is going to happen in three weeks are generally known as "unsophisticated" (or "average voters" if you prefer).

People who don't know what a trend line (First Order Regression) is and/or how to interpret one are generally known as "likely to be wrong" (or "average voters" if you prefer).

People who don't know what a rate of change of a trend line (Second Order Regression) is and/or how to interpret one are generally known as "likely to be wrong" (or "average voters" if you prefer).

People who don't know what a rate of change of the rate of change of a trend line (Third Order Regression) is and/or how to interpret one are generally known as "likely to be wrong" (or "average voters" if you prefer).

The "problem with polls" isn't "the date", it's the fact that to actually understand what the polls mean you have to do some thinking for yourself - and (overstating the case slightly) the "average voter" doesn't like to strain their brain much past the effort of telling the difference between a big "R" or a big "D" following the name of the candidates.
Click to expand...

Do you know that polls said Hillary-Billary was gonna be POTUS?
Do you know what they say now about the mid-terms?
Do you know how many people parade around waiving polls for this and polls for that, claiming these polls mean something?

Watch.
 
Buzz62 said:
Do you know that polls said Hillary-Billary was gonna be POTUS?
Click to expand...

No, that is NOT what the polls said.

What the polls said was that Ms. Clinton was going to get a certain percentage (+/- their margin of error) of the national vote.

Guess what, the polls were correct as Ms. Clinton actually received a percentage of the popular vote that was within the margin of error of what the polls said she would receive.

It was the uneducated (and incredibly oversimplified for "the great unwashed") INTERPRETATION of what the polls reported that was incorrect.

And, of course that uneducated (and incredibly oversimplified for "the great unwashed") INTERPRETATION of what the polls reported continues to be incorrect - as your statement proves.

Buzz62 said:
Do you know what they say now about the mid-terms?
Click to expand...

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. Sept. 22-24, 2018. N=802 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.3.

"If November's election for Congress were held today, which party's candidate are you more likely to vote for in your district: 102.2959%
  • Republican - 41% (read as "between 36.7% and 45.3%)
  • Democrat - 48% (read as "between 43.7% and 52.3%)
  • Neither - 5% (read as "between 0.7% and 9.3%)
  • Unsure - 6% (read as "between 1.7% and 10.3%)

Which tells you exactly what with respect of the election is which electoral district?

[ASIDE - SKILL TESTING QUESTION - 802 is what percentage of the number of responses required from a total population of 157,600,00 in order to generate a "statistically meaningful poll" (i.e +/-3.5% in 95% of all cases). NOTE - The answer is NOT 0.0005%. HINT - The answer is hidden in "invisible electrons" someplace in this post.]

Buzz62 said:
Do you know how many people parade around waiving polls for this and polls for that, claiming these polls mean something?
Click to expand...

A whole lot.

Of that number, the vast majority are going to be telling you that the polls mean exactly what they want you to think the polls mean because they are NOT going to be saying that what they are telling you is their INTERPRETATION of what the data actually means.

And of that number, the majority have absolutely no idea of what is actually required to interpret polling date nor do they have any idea of how to properly construct a meaningful poll, nor do they have the slightest clue as to how to tell if a polling question is properly worded, nor do they have even a hint of the slightest clue as to what methodology is required in order to translate "raw data" into "meaningful polling data".
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
No, that is NOT what the polls said.

What the polls said was that Ms. Clinton was going to get a certain percentage (+/- their margin of error) of the national vote.

Guess what, the polls were correct as Ms. Clinton actually received a percentage of the popular vote that was within the margin of error of what the polls said she would receive.

It was the uneducated (and incredibly oversimplified for "the great unwashed") INTERPRETATION of what the polls reported that was incorrect.

And, of course that uneducated (and incredibly oversimplified for "the great unwashed") INTERPRETATION of what the polls reported continues to be incorrect - as your statement proves.



NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. Sept. 22-24, 2018. N=802 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.3.

"If November's election for Congress were held today, which party's candidate are you more likely to vote for in your district: 102.2959%
  • Republican - 41% (read as "between 36.7% and 45.3%)
  • Democrat - 48% (read as "between 43.7% and 52.3%)
  • Neither - 5% (read as "between 0.7% and 9.3%)
  • Unsure - 6% (read as "between 1.7% and 10.3%)

Which tells you exactly what with respect of the election is which electoral district?

[ASIDE - SKILL TESTING QUESTION - 802 is what percentage of the number of responses required from a total population of 157,600,00 in order to generate a "statistically meaningful poll" (i.e +/-3.5% in 95% of all cases). NOTE - The answer is NOT 0.0005%. HINT - The answer is hidden in "invisible electrons" someplace in this post.]



A whole lot.

Of that number, the vast majority are going to be telling you that the polls mean exactly what they want you to think the polls mean because they are NOT going to be saying that what they are telling you is their INTERPRETATION of what the data actually means.

And of that number, the majority have absolutely no idea of what is actually required to interpret polling date nor do they have any idea of how to properly construct a meaningful poll, nor do they have the slightest clue as to how to tell if a polling question is properly worded, nor do they have even a hint of the slightest clue as to what methodology is required in order to translate "raw data" into "meaningful polling data".
Click to expand...

Thank you for the lesson in poll analysis.
Now if only the media had such knowledge.
 
Buzz62 said:
Thank you for the lesson in poll analysis.
Now if only the media had such knowledge.
Click to expand...

How about we settle for "If only the voters actually knew how to analyze polls rather than simply relying on what the 'Talking Heads' tell them they are supposed to be thinking."?

Hell, I'd settle for "How about if the voters actually started thinking - based on actual facts.".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
How about we settle for "If only the voters actually knew how to analyze polls rather than simply relying on what the 'Talking Heads' tell them they are supposed to be thinking."?

Hell, I'd settle for "How about if the voters actually started thinking - based on actual facts.".
Click to expand...

Ya well...we both know that ain'-a-gonna happen tomorrow.

Polls and the news media. What a mess. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just get the clean facts...all the facts without the bias crappola?

So many today think they should be judging everyone else based upon their political and moral beliefs.
And as you point out, very few actually have the capacity for rational thought.

What a mess indeed...
 
Buzz62 said:
Ya well...we both know that ain'-a-gonna happen tomorrow.

Polls and the news media. What a mess. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just get the clean facts...all the facts without the bias crappola?
Click to expand...

Actually most polling organizations (the reputable ones at any rate) DO provide links to their data (often including breakdowns of the demographic makeup of the actual results obtained [which means "before normalization"] as well as the actual questions asked [frequently with information on HOW the questions were asked]).

Unfortunately to provide all that information would take longer than the time that it takes for a "Talking Head" to say


"The latest __[fill in the blank]__ poll shows that __[fill in the blank]__ is __[fill in the blank]__."
​

when what they really mean is


"What's being projected on the teleprompter is - 'The latest __[fill in the blank]__ poll shows that __[fill in the blank]__ is __[fill in the blank]__. - but I have no idea if that is true or not because I haven't actually looked at the poll myself.".
​

and would certainly take longer to actually explain the polling results than the attention span of the average viewer.

Buzz62 said:
So many today think they should be judging everyone else based upon their political and moral beliefs.
And as you point out, very few actually have the capacity for rational thought.
Click to expand...

I do NOT say that they don't have the CAPACITY for rational thought, it's just that they tend to get lost in thought because it's unfamiliar territory for them.

Buzz62 said:
What a mess indeed...
Click to expand...

The way to teach a child not to make a mess is to make them clean up the mess that they make.

I, semi-facetiously, suggested that the Democrats not run ANY candidates in 2008 in order to force the Republicans to "clean up after themselves". I mean, face it, if there hadn't been a Democrat in either the White House or Congress, it'd be pretty difficult for the "Conservatives" to both sound rational and chant "It's all Clinton's fault." after the Republicans had had eight years in power and when there was ZERO opposition to anything that the Republicans had said had to be done in order to fix the situation from before the 2008 election after the 2008 election.

Of course that would have meant that the Democrats would have been crap shooting on whether the Republicans COULD actually stop/reverse the slide that had started under Mr. Bush (GW) but it would have resulted in destroying both the country and the Republican Party if it had worked out in favour of the Democrats.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually most polling organizations (the reputable ones at any rate) DO provide links to their data (often including breakdowns of the demographic makeup of the actual results obtained [which means "before normalization"] as well as the actual questions asked [frequently with information on HOW the questions were asked]).

Unfortunately to provide all that information would take longer than the time that it takes for a "Talking Head" to say
Click to expand...
Granted. It's more time that I would wanna spend analyzing these polls too. I thought the NEWS was supposed to provide the analysis and summary part. But they don't. They mish mash the numbers and questions and everything else, in order to "truthfully" report of what they want to say. And since I don't have the time, I don't trust polls.

TU Curmudgeon said:

"The latest __[fill in the blank]__ poll shows that __[fill in the blank]__ is __[fill in the blank]__."
​

when what they really mean is


"What's being projected on the teleprompter is - 'The latest __[fill in the blank]__ poll shows that __[fill in the blank]__ is __[fill in the blank]__. - but I have no idea if that is true or not because I haven't actually looked at the poll myself.".
​
Click to expand...
Bravo. Good one.

TU Curmudgeon said:
I do NOT say that they don't have the CAPACITY for rational thought, it's just that they tend to get lost in thought because it's unfamiliar territory for them.
Click to expand...
OK sure.

TU Curmudgeon said:
The way to teach a child not to make a mess is to make them clean up the mess that they make.

I, semi-facetiously, suggested that the Democrats not run ANY candidates in 2008 in order to force the Republicans to "clean up after themselves". I mean, face it, if there hadn't been a Democrat in either the White House or Congress, it'd be pretty difficult for the "Conservatives" to both sound rational and chant "It's all Clinton's fault." after the Republicans had had eight years in power and when there was ZERO opposition to anything that the Republicans had said had to be done in order to fix the situation from before the 2008 election after the 2008 election.

Of course that would have meant that the Democrats would have been crap shooting on whether the Republicans COULD actually stop/reverse the slide that had started under Mr. Bush (GW) but it would have resulted in destroying both the country and the Republican Party if it had worked out in favour of the Democrats.
Click to expand...
That's twisted. Would have been interesting to watch though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom