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: 6
90
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Teikiatsu

At the time, it made sense, but in the modern world of relatively instant travel and information dissemination, it does not. We don't need people voting on our behalf anymore, as we can be as knowledgeable or ignorant to the candidates as we see fit...but we have access to the information, and that's what matters. And the argument about state size versus representation is outdated as well.

It's the remains of a bygone era, and it needs to go the way of slavery and prohibition.



I disagree. What is your proposal, popular vote? Doesn't it seem odd that we were set up to have popular vote only for our Representatives but not originally Senators or Presidents? Obviously the concept of 'popular vote' was not unknown.

Have you stopped to think why it was set up that way?




posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So you really think Obamacare was the big fix? End of troubles? Affordable?

Oh, that is so adorable.




posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Valid poll? Is there such a beast?

998 out of 1000 kindergartners polled say sugar is good for you.

The other two had mouth fulls of paint.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I know exactly why it was set up that way, at least officially--because there would be a claimed disproportionate distribution of election power to larger states, and also because there were fears that, if the general public (popular vote) was misled by a crazy, power-hungry dictator-like individual, that they would elect someone bad for the country (and therefore created the electoral college as a way to have 'qualified' people vote on the candidates), or would play choose local people because of the limited amount of knowledge of other candidates at a time when news traveled quite slowly.

I'm failing to see what your point is concerning popular-vs-elector vote. You truly think that a body that, for the most part, is not beholden to the will of the people by any sort of enforceable law (yes, some laws mandate voting for this or that party's candidate, but if the elector breaks that law, the vote is not null and void, and the punishment is relatively insignificant when breaking said laws), is the best option for choosing the leader of our country? In the Electoral College we have a body of average Joes who are supposed to be (but generally are not) better qualified to see through a poor candidate and pick the best one for the country, but rarely ever do (but that may have more to do with the quality of candidates), and since these electors are the actual people that vote for the president, it reduces (and, IMO, negates) the need for the popular vote at all.

And that's where my biggest issue is anchored--the popular vote. It's good enough for EVERY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICE that matters in America (from local City Council members to the Senators of our nation), but for some lame, outdated reason, we have to have a special group of electors for the president? We live in a world where information is available basically instantaneously, so citing voter ignorance is no longer a valid reason for keeping the Electoral College. Furthermore, in this ability to be instantly informed, we have jettisoned the idea that someone will vote for a local guy purely out of ignorance. And to finish it all off, I have never bought into the idea about the unbalanced way that a popular election would give a smaller voice to smaller states--it's not the state that elects the president, so it really shouldn't matter, because the states are represented in both houses of Congress.

So, after all of that, have YOU stopped to think why the Electoral College really is an unnecessary part of our election process for the presidency? And if so, why do you still think it's such a useful thing?

(sorry for the late reply--I've been busy for the past four days)

Here's a crappy webpage that talks intelligently about the origins behind the E.C.: U.S. Election Atlas



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Source

How the mighty have fallen. Trump now leads Hilary in the ABC/WaPost poll which had her up by 12 points just 2 weeks ago.

They are statistically tied in every single poll for the general election.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So you really think Obamacare was the big fix? End of troubles? Affordable?

Oh, that is so adorable.




DAYumm!! I hope that really, really hurt.
Well done, you!

Yeah, you're a real cutie yourself.
*blush*



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I know exactly why it was set up that way, at least officially--because there would be a claimed disproportionate distribution of election power to larger states, and also because there were fears that, if the general public (popular vote) was misled by a crazy, power-hungry dictator-like individual, that they would elect someone bad for the country (and therefore created the electoral college as a way to have 'qualified' people vote on the candidates), or would play choose local people because of the limited amount of knowledge of other candidates at a time when news traveled quite slowly.


star AND applause there ^^

Some folks just don't get why it is that historically, only some people have been (and ought to be) allowed to have kids ACK! ------- oh, sorry - I meant "to vote"......

only some people ought to be allowed to vote. Or have kids. After all, "it's not rocket surgery" (as Raggedyman likes to insist). LOL!!!!!

And as Chet says, who cares what cosmetologist think? (verb/noun agreement notwithstanding; what does 'cosmetologist' think?)

Oh thats right.

Cosmetologist[s] think[s] that the story in Genesis is actually true. Sad cosmetologist. Upset cosmetologist is upset.







edit on 11/1/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

the sample sizes are always ~1,000 people and you can tell why the poll is swinging one way or the other by looking at the demographics.

they're all pretty much "duh" indicators. the real poll is the final general election

ALTHOUGH you can see sways - such as if Trump was +7 but they oversampled Republicans above Democrats by 10% or something, then you could see that Trump would actually be at a deficit. This goes vice versa for those polls with Clinton up above Trump and the Democrats are polled at a higher percentage than Republicans. I would pay attention to this data much more than the (CLINTON IS UP +5%)..



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

u just need to read how the polling was done to see if its biased one way or the other. first day in a statistics class they teach u to never believe any poll are statistic but instead to look at the data they used to reach their conclusion cause u can bend statistics whichever way u want if u work it right.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
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.

So please let me know, which polls do you think are valid and which do you think are invalid? Does it change based on who is currently leading in that particular poll, or will you unilaterally accept the results of a specific poll regardless of who it shows currently winning?

Also, do you think State polls are more or less accurate compared to National polls? Which polls do you think are more important?

Or, do you think all polls are invalid and that crowd size/yard signs/Facebook likes are more accurate? If so, please try to give a convincing argument as to why you think this.


Which Polls Are Valid? - The One Last Night.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
i.e. The One That Actually Decided Who The Next President Will Be.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Lol at someone digging this back up. Thank you.

Apparently all the polls that supported Trump.

Snarky snark snark.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
None COULD be valid ,we did THAT by shutting out all polling attempts in order to go for a guerrilla voting effort that the DNC couldn't see,and so couldn't counter,
I was on this board SCREAMING about it as factual ,in order to accurately report what we were doing.
I was trying to tell the truth ..in a crass and caustic fashion.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
None of them apparently




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

So...I wonder what Obama's popularity polling really is?



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
None of them apparently




originally posted by: peskyhumans
Lol at someone digging this back up. Thank you.

Apparently all the polls that supported Trump.

Snarky snark snark.



originally posted by: Steak
i.e. The One That Actually Decided Who The Next President Will Be.


More people voted for Hillary, so actually the polls were correct.

The electorate system favored Donald, but that's not rigged!
edit on 9-11-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Yeah, they had to stage that FBI announcement 11 days before the election to eliminate Hillary's *cough* 12 point lead and protect the credibility of their crooked polls.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: kruphix

So...I wonder what Obama's popularity polling really is?


I would expect them to be pretty close to as reported. Keep in mind, Presidential Approval rankings aren't attempting to predict who is going to show up at the polls, which is what caused the election polls to come up short.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

No reason to trust any of the polls. They're propaganda.



new topics

top topics



 
90
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join