It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump Suppoerters, Can You Just Let Us Know Which Polls Are Valid?

page: 3
90
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: xuenchen
this one works ....

New Podesta Email Exposes Dem Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"



That would be really cool if they weren't talking about their own internal polling. Was it a lack of comprehension on your part or did you purposefully go along with how ZH miscontrued the email?


Why would they need to oversample their own internal polling?


I wan't to get all this compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling


Last line in the pic of the email chain. Are they oversampling their own internal polling of their own internal media?


It's definitely their own internal polling. Go look at the actual Atlas report -- it makes it extremely clear that the purpose of the polling is to improve messaging to certain portions of the population, so they can motivate and persuade voters. Oversampling (as well as undersampling) are techniques that are often used to IMPROVE the integrity of the data set.
The Atlas report gives specific recommendations for oversampling and explains why.

None of it has anything to do with creating a misleading poll result to influence the masses. These are not MSM polls, and the goal is ACCURACY not OBFUSCATION.




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Here's another valid Pollster/Prognosticator. Allan Lichtman has NOT BEEN WRONG in more than 30 years.

Allan's Prediction For 11.8.2016: www.washingtonpost.com... rrectly/

As previously stated...when it comes to polls and prognosticators, for ANYTHING AT ALL...(politics, horse races, football, etc..) the best indicator of future accuracy, is PAST accuracy. That is an obvious "no brainer".



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kruphix

Here's another valid Pollster/Prognosticator. Allan Lichtman has NOT BEEN WRONG in more than 30 years.

Allan's Prediction For 11.8.2016: www.washingtonpost.com... rrectly/

As previously stated...when it comes to polls and prognosticators, for ANYTHING AT ALL...(politics, horse races, football, etc..) the best indicator of future accuracy, is PAST accuracy. That is an obvious "no brainer".



The polling means have changed. 2012 was showing online polls were more accurate yet many of the polls are still doing robocalls which has been more and more less stable over the years. Only a tiny percentage answer. They never show how many hang up which is over 99%. That is a seriously flawed poll when 99% are hanging up. Then there is no way to account for people who can not vote. End of the day NOBODY knows what is going to go down. I seldom vote in Presidential elections. This time though both me and my wife are voting. Same with my neighbor and his family. DNC knows it that's why the attacks on Trump are relentless. If they have it in the bag like all the polls are saying why are they spending all this money. Seems like a big waste of time and effort.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Most people probably realize that Hillary will get the election.
.
Now.

A fortnight ago it was a different story.

Though it really wasn't that hard to see, even a month ago. As soon as the first debate was over, so was Ginger. But there are still plenty believers in the Orange Revolution. Saying the polls are rigged.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Opinion polls influence public opinion as much as they measure it. I don't think that's going to wash much longer.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DAVID64

you know the funny thing?

Most people probably realize that Hillary will get the election.

But it seems as though the Hillary fans want us to "like" it. It's like they want to spread the guilt and embarrassment.

Yes, you all should be ashamed for supporting the guy. He is the most inept candidate in the history of our country, and he is one of the few people on earth who could lose the election to Clinton. Republicans are awful at this point and need to be shamed so they never allow this type of thing to happen again. You all have allowed one of the most corrupt people on earth to waltz into the white house. Great job being anti-establishment.
edit on 24-10-2016 by IsntLifeFunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
@op funny how they can't muster up a single coherent response.

This website has brought me to a point I am questioning even further my outlook on the IQ of our society. I'm glad this place is fringe and the rest of society is slightly above the IQ of the average post I read here.

Example: Any male who isn't feminized obviously supports Trump.

Interesting phenomenon watching this website lose its collective mind.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

only if you tell us which wiki leaks documents are fake.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kruphix

Here's another valid Pollster/Prognosticator. Allan Lichtman has NOT BEEN WRONG in more than 30 years.

Allan's Prediction For 11.8.2016: www.washingtonpost.com... rrectly/

As previously stated...when it comes to polls and prognosticators, for ANYTHING AT ALL...(politics, horse races, football, etc..) the best indicator of future accuracy, is PAST accuracy. That is an obvious "no brainer".



He says right up front his system might not be accurate this year because Trump is such a bad candidate.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask


His supporters are as screwed up in the head with logic as he is


I'll be glad when this is all over and the people I know have some sense will get back to openly displaying it.

(your paint brush is a bit too wide sir)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny




You all have allowed one of the most corrupt people on earth to waltz into the white house.


You are fu**ing kidding me, right? If you can say that with a straight face, while still voting for Clinton, you have serious critical thinking problems.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kruphix

Here's another valid Pollster/Prognosticator. Allan Lichtman has NOT BEEN WRONG in more than 30 years.

Allan's Prediction For 11.8.2016: www.washingtonpost.com... rrectly/

As previously stated...when it comes to polls and prognosticators, for ANYTHING AT ALL...(politics, horse races, football, etc..) the best indicator of future accuracy, is PAST accuracy. That is an obvious "no brainer".



He says right up front his system might not be accurate this year because Trump is such a bad candidate.


Also, it's not a system to predict who wins...it's a system to predict how likely the incumbent party holds the white house.

But as you said...with Trump running as the Republican candidate, he says his system might not work well this year.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

since a large portion of the public are idiots and wait to be told what to think from their respective channel on the idiot box, whatever the MSM reports is how they will react. But in the really, really big picture, the Electoral college decides who will be the next president, so our votes, while they are a right granted by the constitution, don't mean very much other than placating us into thinking we make some sort of difference.

In the end, we have the choice between a habitual liar who will likely sell out whatever she can to whomever offers her the most $ in some back room deal, or a loud mouth narcissist who may or may not have the gonads it takes to deal with ALL of the aspects of the job of POTUS.

The choice sucks, but then again, it has for the last several elections.

The whole world thinks they both suck badly as a choice. Even Hillary is running adds where the people are saying they hate Trump, so they really only have the choice to vote for Hillary. (and she approves this message) At what point do you realize that nobody likes you for a few really good reasons?

It would be better to focus on the VP choices. Then at least we could discuss policy and action instead of who sucks the least.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
CAN YOU LET US KNOW WHICH EMAILS ARE VALID ? WIKILEAKS HAS 100% CREDIBILITY,,,,OH BUT NOW THEY ARE FAKED LMAO,,LIBTARDS ARE A BUNCH OF LIBTARDS



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

I am sorry, which national polls are you referring to?

Source: Real Clear Politics

In polls that use good methodology (accurate ratios for Dem vs Rep vs Ind) they are statistically tied nationwide.

The ABC poll is coming under fire for using an inflated number of democrats (you can check their methodology, they use 36% instead of 29%, they use an accurate number of Republicans, though, at 27% and they underused independents (41% is the actual number).



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

According to the email it's for the Media, not their internal polling.

In fact, the email was for Atlas to send the info to the highest ranks at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and that they should in turn, "maximize what we get out of our media polling".
edit on 24-10-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny




You all have allowed one of the most corrupt people on earth to waltz into the white house.


You are fu**ing kidding me, right? If you can say that with a straight face, while still voting for Clinton, you have serious critical thinking problems.


False dichotomy is false. Who said I was voting for Clinton? I don't vote for idiots. Who are you going to vote for? If it's Trump then I believe your quote would be considered a projection.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny

You did...Source



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny

You did...Source


Okay. I've flopped on the issue. I'm okay with admitting that my hate for Trump has almost pushed me to vote for Clinton. Either way, that wasn't sourced here and is still a logical fallacy with the way it was discussed.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

I think the answer to your question can be found in the first three paragraphs of your opening post:




I was about to make a couple threads, one about the current view of the national polls and why they are showing that Clinton is still well ahead in the polls.

The other was going to be about Texas and Arizona, and how Trump may lose both of those states based on Poll trending.

But as I was creating the first one I thought, "Why? They are just going to claim the polls I am using (which is all of them) aren't valid". So instead I thought, let me just ask them which ones they will accept as valid.


Notice you are not looking for a poll result based on its accuracy. You are looking for a poll result to convince someone else of something. Naturally, people are going to be suspicious of a poll result selected to convince them of something.

The question is, why? If Clinton is well ahead in the polls, why do you need to convince anyone that is the case? If you have good reason to think Trump is going to lose Texas and Arizona, why should you care what anyone else thinks?

As for the polls themselves, I am suspicious of all of them. Even if every attempt is made to make a poll as random and unbiased as possible, there can be misinterpretations in the questions and conclusions. I remember a thread a few months back about a poll. One of the questions was something to the effect, "Does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" People were shocked that 25% responded "No." In fact, "No" is the correct answer. But the conclusion of the poll was that 25% of the people polled believe that the Earth was flat, which is not an accurate conclusion. Multiple choice answers without explanation can give misleading results. Imagine if the debates were multiple choice. Select A, B, C, D, or E, with no explanation of your selection. It would certainly make for shorter debates, but a lot of misunderstandings.

Of course, the results can always be "spun." For instance, there is a large military presence in my area. Suppose a poll was taken, do you favor candidate A or candidate B? Suppose 70% support candidate A. That could be reported as, "70% of military polled support candidate A." Or, that could be reported "A large majority of people without college degrees [enlisted personnel] support candidate A."

In any case, it seems that polls are used more and more to convince people of an opinion rather than to measure opinions. If Trump or Clinton really have more popular support, why does anyone need a poll? The candidates themselves might find them useful to measure their performance, but I don't select a candidate to vote for anyone based on their poll numbers.







 
90
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join