Lefty Math

CNBC obviously has more Republican readers.

however, the poll is crap as you can vote in it thousands of times if you want

 

You can't offend me, since I am a conservative. You certainly can't offend me if you have read my posts (like #42) on this thread and still will not discuss or acknowledge the statistical value that is created when a large number of these unreliable polls show such similar results. It has become clear now that lefties will not discuss this statistical value, which shows that it is important and does not help the left. You and every lefty here are shielding this from discussion.

 

You can't produce the statistic you are asking for because it is impossible.

Even Fox News is telling their staff that the online polls are crap, meaningless and "just for fun": http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-online-debate-polls-trump-drudge-2016-9?r=UK&IR=T

If you want to assign them meaning, and claim that everyone else is wrong because they can't quantify statistically the imaginary meaning you delusionally assume is there, that is your problem, not mine.

Truthfully, I could not care less why you imagine meaning from the meaningless polls, but thought it would be amusing to see you try... As expected, you just dodge with lame excuses.

 

I am quite conservative, and a retired statistician, and I am afraid you are just wrong on this issue. These polls tell us nothing about the opinions of the citizens of the United States.

It is rare, extremely rare, that the Left is correct. But this is one of those occasions.

 

There is no "statistical value" of these unreliable polls. So telling others that since they can't magically create your imaginary statistical value only shows your own lack of understanding and knowledge of basic statistics, not anyone else's.

 

Reminds me of: Mountain Dew’s ‘Dub the Dew’ Online Poll Goes Horribly Wrong

tldr; Mt. Dew starts online poll to name a new drink. "Hitler did nothing wrong" was leading the pack by the time the company nixed it.

Some people would have you believe that most Dew drinkers are neo-Nazis. Rational people, on the other hand, don't need to see "the math" on why the poll is unreliable.

 

It would seem likely to me that if you are knowledgeable of statistics as well as being a little conservative, you are correct and I am not. I suppose I may never know for sure, and a Trump victory in November will only fuel my confirmation bias.

With your knowledge of statistics and all, can you shine some light on this thing where the results from a large number of independent unreliable sources are so similar? My layman knowledge of statistics shows me when I flip a coin that the more times I flip the coin, the less likely it becomes that it lands consistently on heads. Similar logic tells me that the more of these unreliable polls there are that are able to produce similar results, the more like it would be that there is something to these results. Although it is not quantitative either, I have observed that humans avoid talking about things that they don't want to talk about, and this stat that I am talking about here has had a very powerful wall built around it by the lefties of this thread. Perhaps I am wrong about the statistic that no lefty here has touched with a ten foot pole, maybe it is just common sense.

 

Not me; I only do "imaginary numbers", rarely.

 

they haven't limited online polling to one vote per ip address yet? That's seems pretty antiquated.

 

Back at thread #10 I posted

And you have continued to prove me correct. After repeated common language explanations you keep complaining that no one is answering your questions. Yet you are looking for an answer that doesn’t exist. On Thread #14 I posted this

I noticed you have framed this thread and your obnoxious objections as if Lefties somehow are mathematically unsophisticated. I gave you a clear mathematical paper which should tell you exactly what you want to know. But you don’t want to know or understand. At this point I’m thinking that perhaps the mathematics are far beyond your comprehension.

 

Flipping a coin tells you about that coins, observing unreliable polls tells you something about unreliable polls, but nothing about the subject matter of the polls.

I think you are better off heeding reliable polls. The people who conduct them do it as a business. If they cheated with their polls, it would be bad for their businesses, bad for pollsters everywhere.

 

Obviously. Anyone with such low self-worth to proudly proclaim themselves a conservative what insult can be made of you that you haven't already made of yourself.

 

Close but delusional thinking isn't a conservative value. The OP is no conservative. Reactionary, yes. Conservative, hardly.

 

That was the closest that I have seen a lefty come to discussing the statistical information that I have described. You still missed though, since you described it as statistical value of "unreliable polls" and not the statistical value of "a large number of unreliable polls with trend of similar results". You can't speculate on the value that I am referring to unless you can identify what exactly I am referring to, nor can you deny it.

 

Pretty simple. All of these polls were conducted at the same time and people could vote in all of them with just a couple of minutes spent at their computer or smartphone. It's the same reason Ron Paul won all of the online polls when he ran, whether the poll was on Fox News or MSNBC, didn't matter. He won because more Ron Paul fans cared enough to go to each of those polls...it did NOT indicate that he had the support of the majority of Americans.

 

He keeps telling everyone he is a conservative.

 

The problem with having you be the one to respond to that post is that you never touched the statistic that you quoted that I was referring to when I said "ten foot pole". By jumping onto that conversation at that point, it allowed you to slip through without ever touching it with a ten foot pole. The guy I was talking to said he was conservative and sounds like he may actually be, and he also qualified himself with the career that he retired from.

 

You are fooling no one. You don't have some kind of special knowledge that no one else can understand. You are a dolt and the more you dibble on the more obvious it becomes to everyone.

 

You have to give him credit for trying to wrap the BS in math. It's interesting that he lets us know that he's not educated (surprise!) in math, yet still wants to see math.

I want math! I don't understand math! I don't want anyone replying who disagrees with me!

 

He doesn't stop there. He tells others what they are too. He's the king of labelling. Makes him feel good I guess.

 

This thread really isn't going how you had hoped, huh?

You said, "Perhaps I am wrong about the statistic that no lefty here has touched with a ten foot pole, maybe it is just common sense."

I laid out the "common sense" part for you in a comprehensible manner. I can't help but notice that you failed to address a single specific thing that I've said.

 

Yep.

Bots are particularly effective as are anonymous forwarding services.

 

The election cleared up a lot of questions that I had about mixing lefty polls with politics. I have a much better understanding now.

 

The problem here turns out to be that having lefties involved with political polling skews the results and destroys the integrity of the data. There is a reason why we don't want a fox guarding the hen house, just as there is a reason why these polls that I have been speaking of keep coming up with similar results that conflict with reality.

 

The numbers make sense to me now. I have a much better understanding of these polls now, and I understand why the independent results were so similar while being in such conflict with what the media was presenting.