»Polls are crap, most of them are not representative«
|
|||
 these polls because i have never been asked and neither has anyone i know...why...most of the polls are conducted with a specific political purpose behind them...and so they pick their targets in order to achieve the results they want its not statistically acceptable if its not representative and very few of these polls are take election polls...most polls in the US are taken in major cities(usually democrat supporting) or in key states in certain areas i can probably go to an area of america and find almost entirely bush voters or entirely democrat voters...does this mean i can make the bold statement that the US is 100% for or against bush...no posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Polls are crap, most of them are not representative |
|
|||
 Quote: its not statistically acceptable if its not representative and very few of these polls are This is an entirely different topic (and a manslaughter-argument) and you only argue about error margins. I am not fighting for 1% or 2% here. It's about the anti-US TREND. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: It's about the anti-US TREND. what trend...a trend because the media says so...and it all works the same way... "lets interview 3 people who hate america and then say that there is a very anti american sentiment in this area" come on man...use your common sense...this is the way the media works...they have their own agenda and push it the way they know will get attention posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: "lets interview 3 people who hate america and then say that there is a very anti american sentiment in this area" What the heck are you talking about? Quote: The GlobeScan/Maryland poll, of 34330 people, was conducted mainly in July and August. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 34330? whats the population there? id say that's about maybe what 10 percent of the state? maybe..i mean seriously listen to what anomaly says. use your sence. you hate the US ok...hmmm you only look at polls that hate the US...you only listen to certain media outlets that hate the US or bush...i think you know what im trying to say.your biased towards things you want to hear. if i told you that the whole entire middle section of america and parts of the east coast are voting for bush you wouldnt beleive me. but if i told you that the east coast is all democrats and hate bush you would rather listent to that. but its not true. allthough it seems in some polls its true but polls are shit. you know that. posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: 34330? whats the population there? id say that's about maybe what 10 percent of the state? 
You post is so unbelieveable, I don't even know where to start. You know, a friend of mine who was visiting USA was asked whether "they have fridges in Europe". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: You know, a friend of mine who was visiting USA was asked whether "they have fridges in Europe". what are you saying? i don't understand posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
is that i can go out today into a certain area of britain and find that almost the entire population of that area will vote conservatives in the next general election i can then make the bold claim that 99% of people in the country will vote conservatives in the next general election because that's what my sample told me and it would be utter bullshit this is the point with the "bush haters"...go to a gay area of new york...or a dominican area...ask of they will vote bush...most of them will say no...go to a deep south area or a rich suburb...most of them will say yes i can only presume that seeing as no-one i know has ever been asked in these bush hating polls what their opinion is that either the people in my area don't count 
or that the people who are conducting the poll are being very selective in the people they ask...in order to get a set of desired results and that's the way all poll conducting works...expecially media concucted polls(cause every paper or news broadcaster has an angle be it for or against a particular political party) posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: is that i can go out today into a certain area of britain and find that almost the entire population of that area will vote conservatives in the next general election Yes, but no serious poller does that. Why are you even thinking of such gross mistakes? Polls are pretty accurate. I state a poll result but you try to disprove it by baseless accusations. Quote: this is the point with the "bush haters"...go to a gay area of new york...or a dominican area...ask of they will vote bush...most of them will say no...go to a deep south area or a rich suburb...most of them will say yes Tell me 1 poll where this happened and was presented as the country's average opinion. 1 poll. Noone does it like this. Quote: or that the people who are conducting the poll are being very selective in the people they ask...in order to get a set of desired results Exactly. They are very selective to have a representative picture. If ANYTHING then the opinion is WORSE towards Bush (because polls are usually done by phone and not mobile). I can't believe that I say "Most think Bush sucks" and your only answer is "Polls suck because of suburb areas and noone ever asked me". Give me 1 example where a poll grossly failed beyond error margin. 1 example. Zogby.com, for example, says that in US election 2004 they were 0.1% close to the final outcome. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clinton polls can be biased but not to the extent his political opponents want to believe. Stats mentioned are public figures and are not fake. Look at the deficit numbers and employment count. Should be no surprise people like Clinton. He led like a man. He was not a fear fairy. His presence created optimism and a true sense of well being and the world prospered. The numbers show that. Polls acknowledge that. And sure few hate that. posted by blueSky |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
is that no poll is every truly objective...all of them are conducted in ways that choose people to obtain certain results even official figures are done this way the example you give about employment figures here is a little trick the british government use they came up with a policy called "new deal" in which unemployed people are forced to work(or their benefits are taken away) in a menial job...during this time it is still job seekers allowance benefit that they recieve...from the public purse and they get an extra £10 a week for full time work(giving them about £43 per week) during this time they are not counted as being unemployed so don't go onto official figures...OFFICIAL FIGURES...even they are biased to present a certain situation that is not reality the reality in the circles that i move in(hey...look at me ) is that no-one i know hates america...so where do these results come from...Quote: baseless accusations are you so naive to think that people don't have agendas most polls are either conducted by the media or by organisations that are paid by political or capalist bodies to produce results if this were a peice of scientific research then it would be dismissed as having a conflict of interest and the results would be invalid the sampling method in polls has to be correct...if it is not...the results are bullshit even the ultimate polls(elections) arent representative because not everyone bothers to vote... so for instance if this were to happen 50% of americans who are eligable to vote actually bother 51% of these vote bush and 49% vote kerry bush gets into power with less than 25% of the population having voted for him because he is in power...i can deduce that everyone in america loves george bush...because they voted him into power is this a correct assumption and a valid conclusion from the results of the election...NO polls happen on an even smaller scale than that...so how can they be valid like i say...i know alot of people...none of them have ever taken part in these polls...why...because most of them are taken by opportunity sampling(because its cheapest)...the fact that most of the companies/media broadcasters/newspapers that conduct these polls are based in london...they go out and interview people from london...then they say that all british people think blah blah blah etc etc...so they assume that the people of london are representative of britain as a whole which is utter nonsense and that's the way polls work posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
not only that but he made a mockery of the US after monica. he wasnt a well liked president it just seems that way cause the net wasnt that big into politics like it is now. look at the world. its corrupt. i see one man leading the revolution to start something with morals. if a dem is elected kiss all morals goodbye. posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: is that no poll is every truly objective But they are 95% objective +- error margin. Quote: here is a little trick the british government use This has NOTHING to do with poll methodology. What you mean is a definition issue. A better example is what the communistic East Germany did: If there wer too little friuts they defined pumpkins as fruits. Has something to to with statistical forgery. Nothing with polls. Quote: most polls are either conducted by the media or by organisations that are paid by political or capalist bodies to produce results You again assume some gross errors. Give me 1 example where this happened. Quote: because he is in power...i can deduce that everyone in america loves george bush Huh? Where? What? Quote: is this a correct assumption and a valid conclusion from the results of the election...NO Of course not, and who such an assumption? Quote: polls happen on an even smaller scale than that...so how can they be valid Because they ask the right questions to the right people. I can't understand your GENERAL rant why you THINK that polls are inaccurate, yet you fail to give 1 example of a poll that grossly failed. Quote: like i say...i know alot of people...none of them have ever taken part in these polls... which is utter nonsense... and that's the way polls work Yet you refuse to name 1 poll that grossly failed. A baseless accusation. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: happy now No, this page actually proves how well polls work. The maximum error margin was 2.8% that's pretty good. Quote: The table compares the final polls with the outcome of each of the last eight elections, showing the closest estimate in each case and the range of other poll predictions. The closest in 2001 (ICM/Guardian) was 0.6% adrift, the most inaccurate estimate askew by 2.8% in That's better than I thoght. Your page is actually about something else. About the Labour Bias vs. Tory Bias. That's something I have posted at IMO → US election maps and electoral calculators#18319 (-> Gallup favors Bush in his polls) In other words: Bush is even more disliked than the polls show. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 11 February 2012, 19:31 php B.B. |