Lefty Math

its very related

 

I suspect that there is some statistical value to the broad numbers of these independent online polls, regardless of the potential margin of error of each one. What kind of probability are we looking at that such a broad number of these independent polls would reflect such similar results? This is the question that every lefty here on this thread is avoiding and diverting attention from, so this is the probability question that needs to get resolved.

Below, you can see what I asked for in the OP, which is what lefties are avoiding.

 

sorry bro, but non-scientific/non-randomized polls only tell you what the READERS of the website believe

 

An analogy would be is you asked a question, "Should marijuana be legal?"

1) If you ask that question at a Grateful Dead cover band concert, the answer to poll will be different than if you ask that question at a Christian rock band concert. It matters who is voting.

2) Not only that, it matters who is motivated to vote. For example, if you say, vote in this poll about if marijuana should be legal, and you will be sent a free sample of pot, the poll is certainly going to have more people who smoke pot vote. Trump voters are angry and motivated. They are significantly motivated with dissatisfaction with the status quo. So they will be more motivated, speak louder, and seek outlets for their opinions (even if they are not given free pot). People satisfied with the status quo will be less motivated. This translates to Trump voters seeking out polls as well.

So some poll on a right wing site or left wing site is going to have a bunch of right wingers or left wingers voting on it. That means it's results are meaningless.

For a poll to be accurate, it has to be of a sample representative of the voting population as a whole, not just people who visit a certain web site, and not just people who seek out the poll. That is why only polls where people are selected randomly, the people say they plan to vote and enough people are asked to make the sample representative of the population as a whole are valid.

 

Please compare your response to this quote from my OP, and tell me how your response is related to my OP: There was a broad number of independent polls who independently came up with similar results, and I am interested in the probability that such a broad number of INDEPENDENT results would be so similar could be so wrong compared to what one collective media with a common partisan intent is reporting.

 

Below is what you have just sidestepped, which shows that it is what you want to avoid talking about. This shows me where lefties are weak, and what they cannot answer to. Why do you fear addressing what I have asked for in the OP, and below?

 

Please compare your response to this quote from my OP, and tell me how your response is related to my OP: You have avoided addressing the facts that the broad number of INDEPENDENT polls came up with very similar results, regardless of the type of audience affiliated with each site. I demonstrated in my OP that I was already aware that online polls are not quantitative, so to explain to me how inaccurate online polls are is just dodging what I was really asking about, and is what lefties here are avoiding.

 

Because similar populations are participating in all of the online polls--troll-like Trump Voters-- and that population is not a random sampling of the voter population. Again, Ron Paul would be President today if those things were accurate. They are purely and simply, a way for interested people to express their opinion. They are nothing more or less than that. Please show me the polls you're talking about specifically that show these results. Let's look at their sampling methodology. Online polls have NO scientific accuracy. They don't have random sampling, which is necessary for them to be reflective of the population as a whole.

 

Because it explains why the online polls are not accurate. And the polls cited the media, that are scientific polls are correct.... The fact that you believe the media is lefty controlled does not make it so, it just means you are far to the right, and only the furthest right wing media are not left of you personally. So do you think the media is just making this up, and the polling organizations are not actually conducting polls, the media is just making up the numbers? Please do explain how you believe the media is not being factual when they are citing scientific polls, and that the unscientific ones must be right?

It has been clearly explained many times why the online polls are not accurate. So the probability is ridiculously high that online polls are wrong. Even explanations about why, with sample control and motivation for this have been explained.

But go ahead and continue to dismiss scientific polls, for believing non scientific polls, because it suits your opinion and you desperately are reaching for lame excuses, like the media is all lefty.

If you really want to get into statistics and probability and find a hard number, like, oh it is .1% possible the online polls are right, then you have to look at the margin of error of the polls... Whoops the online polls don't have one. That is why you can't give an exact probability the online polls are meaningless statistically. If you actually wanted a scientific answer, you would have to calculate the margin of error for all of the online polls.

How about this... If one person walks into a gay bar and asks one person if they are gay, and the person says yes. Their polls says that 100% of people are gay... If this poll is conducted 10 times, and 9 times it shows that 100% of people are gay, it does not make any of the results more accurate. Then there is one poll were 10,000 people are asked from a random sample if they are gay, and the results are 7% of people are gay with a margin of error of +/- 1%. Think about it, does the 9 polls saying 100% of people are gay mean the one poll saying 7% of people are gay is less valid... What is the probability the gay bar poll is wrong? Well you can't say exactly, because the gay bar poll has no margin of error and is meaningless. So don't worry about the probability that something that is meaningless. An intelligent person would believe the scientific poll, because that is the far more accurate one, and not even wonder what the probability the gay bar polls were right. Only if you were really capable of self delusion and really wanted to believe that everyone was gay, would you ignore the scientific polls and think the gay bar polls were right. But that wouldn't make the scientific polls less reliable, it only would show how desperate, gullible or ignorant you would be to dismiss them by claiming they were "lefty" or something.

But go ahead and keep believe those online polls if it make you sleep better at night... and Santa Clause too if that helps as well. Doesn't make them true, and someday reality will let you down. In this case, November 8th, unless things change.

 

Weighting the results based on demographics...

that sounds susceptible

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

I suspect that the folks who frequent slate and cnbc do not share the same ideology as those who frequent drudge or time, although there may be some who do. This is not really what matters though. What matters here is becoming very clear as lefties in this thread continue to avoid talking about the fact that the broad number of INDEPENDENT polls, as inaccurate as they might be, and as many different audiences might frequent each one's site, begin to form a relevant statistic. Individually, each of these polls is very untrustworthy and scientific, but the accuracy of each one begins to accumulate credibility as the number of similarly untrustworthy polls with the same results grows. Two untrustworthy polls with similar results are not very credible, but a dozen of these untrustworthy polls with the same results becomes credible. The higher the number of these unscientific polls with the same results are, the more probable it becomes that these similar results have some credible meaning. The lefties in this thread can all see this, which is why they are avoiding it like the plaque. It is like an elephant in the room, the lefties are going to great lengths to avoid acknowledging it.

 

There is a good reason why you are steering around the statistic that is created when a large number of independent polls who have little credibility on an individual basis all come up with similar results independently of each other. The reason why you avoid this statistic has become clear in this thread where every lefty has gone to great lengths to avoid acknowledging it, it is because you don't want to admit how the lefty media has falsely reported the sweeping Hillary victory in the recent debate where almost every online poll of all political ideologies shows that Trump won.

 

So all the scientific polls are wrong? The unscientific ones are right? Please explain how that happens. Do you think the lefty media is just lying?

I can see you in November, just like Karl Rove in the last election denying Ohio went to Obama... but the online polls said.... whaaa whaaa.

 

If you can accurately describe to me the statistic that I am accusing you and every other lefty on this thread of dodging, I will respond to this dodge bait.

 

While I am a lot more anti Hillary than I am pro Trump, my conservative credentials are undeniable as evidenced by the cacophony of posts I have made on this site. I very much want Trump to win which means that Hillary would lose.

You need to stop. A non randomized poll is 100% useless. It means nothing. You can have a million non randomized polls, and the sum total still equates to nothing. Garbage in/ garbage out. There is not a magical "statistic" that can be derived relative to the electorate as a whole because of the number of non randomized polls quoted. I want Trump to have won the debate, and maybe he did, but that will not be known until the scientific polling of the race that were started after the debate are completed, which should start to become evident tomorrow. My guess is that the trajectory of this race will not have changed a great deal in either direction.

About the only correlation that you can possibly try to make for opt in polls proving anything, is the level of enthusiasm amongst core supporters. If supporters are going to take the time to register a vote on opt in polls, they tend to be more enthusiastic versus those that do not. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are perfect examples of such. They both had extremely enthusiastic supporters that consistently flooded opt in polls, and correspondingly almost always polled extremely well in those opt in polls. What we can derive from Trump doing so well in a litany of opt in polls is that he has a base of very enthusiastic support, but we already knew that.

You have started several threads on this subject. All you are doing is parading around your ignorance as if it were a badge of honor. You are making us "righties" look bad.

 

I'm not a lefty. I do know about the science of statistics and surveys. If I were a true Trump believer, I would go to all of the above sites and vote for Trump. That's why Ron Paul did great at online polls. His supporters were willing to go site by site and vote. Please give me links to the sites with the polls. I just did a quick look at Slate, and couldn't find one.

A dozen pieces of garbage is still garbage.

 

There may be merit to what you are saying here in regard to the meanings of all the different poll data that is being considered in this thread, but I do not know. What I do know better than most, is human nature. In this thread, every lefty has avoided discussing the statistic that describes the results of a broad number of independent sources, regardless of how credible they are or are not, that come up with similar results. Two polls on almost any subject that are non scientific is a coincidence, and perhaps maybe even 3 or four in a row. After this, there must be some something worth considering that effects the outcome of even more subsequent results with similar results. Every lefty here is ready willing and able to point the finger at righties who have maliciously gone into all these different polls Ronstar style, but not one has been willing to stand out and acknowledge that the reason why all of those independent polls are similar is because they are correct. I know enough about human nature to know that lefties here really are conscious of that the broad number of independent polls may very well be reflecting the truth, and that the broad number of independent results that match as a whole may very well lend credibility to polling methods that are of little value as individual polls.

 

That "something worth considering", is that Trumps supporters are more enthusiastic than Hillarys. While that extra enthusiasm is a good thing for Trump, and while one would certainly rather have more enthusiasm rather than less, it does not necessarily equate to winning the debate or the election. Ask the Ron Paul and Bernie supporters.

 

yeah, and Romeny is gonna win by a landslide, you can find a pool to say anthing

 

internet polls only tell us ONE thing, and that is the views of the websites readers.

nothing more.

 

do you know where that came from? you liberals make it sound like every one on the right side was saying and believing that
It was one political contributor on fox news that was saying that his name was Dick Morris and he received push back from the show host when he made that claim even Hannity was saying it was going to be a very close race

 

As others have mentioned, if online polls were worth a damn then Ron Paul would have been POTUS for the last 8 years.

Furthermore, let's be honest, anyone who needs to see a mathematical explanation before accepting that online polls are unreliable wouldn't have the logical faculties to understand that math anyway. Sorry to be so blunt but I think most people here know that to be true.

 

Ok, so what were the views of the website readers who voted for the CNBC poll and the Slate poll?

 

Links to the above. I can't find a Slate poll on the front page of the Slate site. Must not be that important.

 

You have to want to find information in order to find it. Here is a link to the kind of stuff that the internet is being scrubbed of.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html

There is plenty more if you look.

.