Real time Facebook presidential poll shows a completely different story than mainstream media polls

a reply to: Rezlooper

"'My conclusion is that the media and their polls do not always reflect reality,' Kneller posted on his Facebook page. "

WELL DUH! It's called don't believe every statistic you see. Polls are notoriously bad statistics because of the population and sample sizes.

It's true. All those people saying that you're wrong are obviously ignorant about statistics. Must not have taken anything past advanced algebra or something.

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Rezlooper

"'My conclusion is that the media and their polls do not always reflect reality,' Kneller posted on his Facebook page. "

WELL DUH! It's called don't believe every statistic you see. Polls are notoriously bad statistics because of the population and sample sizes.

It's true. All those people saying that you're wrong are obviously ignorant about statistics. Must not have taken anything past advanced algebra or something.

Sounds like you could freshen up on your statistics knowledge.

The limitations of the sample size are reflected in the rest of the parameters freely published along with the results.

Here's a link where you can calculate your own sample sizes: www.surveysystem.com...

Here's an example:

Population size: 150,000,000 (roughly the number of registered voters).
Margin of error: 3
Confidence Level: 95%

Required sample size = 1067

a reply to: Rezlooper

Here are the unscientific results so far as posted an hour ago:

UPDATE:

This post is still getting shared all over the US.

AT 106,000 comments these were the results.

Results were calculated by a follower at 106,000 votes cast: Donald Trump received 90,152(84.8%) Hillary Clinton received 14,084(13.2%)(Including "No Trump", "Never Trump", and related), Other received 2,072(1.9%)(Other is, Stein, Johnson, Mickey Mouse,BUGS BUNNYetc..), Some people did vote more than once, so an error rate of + or - 5% has been figured in . Will be calculated again at 200,000 votes.

I now return you to your regularly schedule rhetorical diarrhea...

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

I now return you to your regularly schedule rhetorical diarrhea...

I hope they don't make me start scheduling my rhetorical diarrhea. Like actual diarrhea, mine comes in unpredictable spurts.

Interested in Brexit just before the election, I viewed a Sky News documentary on it. When I heard the interviews of the pensioners ranting against migrants and financial issues, I knew that's how the vote would go. It's a "Silent Majority" of sorts in American terms.

Just the fact this thread shot to 22 pages tells me something.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Just the fact this thread shot to 22 pages tells me something.

People have a lot of free time and enjoy arguments with lots of low hanging fruit?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

Prog world of course SJW champion and Hillary's lap dog...thinking she's right at all ...

Your posts are riddled with cliche.

Cankered even.

a reply to: FlyingFox

It tells you that neither side of the argument actually knows how polls work.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Rezlooper
not to burst your bubble but all polls are totally unreliable and the popular vote is not what elects president it is the electoral college votes and they can vote what ever way they want.

If the electoral college went totally against the will of the people, you would see a huge revolt. This would include people voting out every incumbent in office.

LITERALLY...The electoral college went against the will of the people in 2004. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college.

Really? It was in 2000. And the electoral college went the way they were supposed to vote, by the popular vote per their state.

Do you realize some states allow the electoral votes to be given to any candidate the electoral vote rep wants, even if it doesn't reflect the votes from their state?

The Constitution and federal law do not require electors to abide by the results of the popular vote in their states, so occasionally “faithless electors” go rogue and cast ballots for candidates other than the one to whom they are pledged. A slight majority of states require electors to cast their votes as pledged, although no “faithless elector” has ever been prosecuted.

Source

Yes, but it hasn't happened. Did that happen in the 2000 election?

a reply to: Rezlooper

No.

a reply to: raymundoko

Everything I have said is supported by statistics and the only minority I am speaking of is that of my own race. As far as graduation rates are concerned those numbers are based on those that actually attend school. Home schooling has to be taken into consideration as well as those that just did not attend school all together. Of which I can't find any hard numbers.
Also just because they graduated does not mean they did well or are intelligent in any way. As I believe in most schools you can graduate with a D or a 1.5 GPA. Also thanks to the current system those that can't or choose not to achieve that are put in remedial classes where they are given simplified worksheets. These individuals are also considered as graduates. Lastly we are one of the least intelligent countries in the world. Which means a large amount of Americans are vastly under educated. The majority of trumps supporters are those that are under educated. Coincidence?

According to the statistics only 3% of black voters support trump. Whereas the rest of the stats reflect the facts that a large portion of trump supporters are older, white, live in more rural areas and are less intelligent. You are the one that brought up other races. So please quit trying to make this a race thing just because you can't admit that you have to be absolutely ignorant or a total sheep to want to support either one of the presidential nominees. Also everything I have said is factual whether you would like to admit it or not.

The duck dynasty group is an exception as they are more intelligent and better educated than the vast majority of rednecks. Regardless of that they are still rednecks and because of that they are attracted to trumps childish and idiotic behavior

and if he wins, or wins by a landslide?? what will you say?

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

The good news is your bigoted posts are here for everyone to read. No statistics show that the older white crowd who support trump are uneducated. Your bigoted ignorance is making that assumption because you are a small person.

You are also confusing what uneducated means. You've made it clear you believe someone is uneducated if they lack at least a 2 year degree since those are the stats you keep espousing.

Has Trump been crowned King of the Interwebz yet???

please just do the right thing and vote trump for the good of the country....hold your nose if you have to.a reply to: conscientiousobserver

a reply to: raymundoko

Good I'm glad as education is something that should be taken more seriously in this country and shouldn't be protected by political correctness. Nor should the bar be lowered because this country is full of idiots, but it has been and it is only making the problem worse.

So let's get this straight. I'm a bigot because I think we have a serious education problem in this country and the mass ignorance is only perpetuating more ignorance? That sounds pretty ignorant to me.

As made evident by my previous post a high school diploma is almost worthless these days and does not automatically mean that those graduates are intelligent.

While I can't provide clear data proving my point because there is very little. We can easily see the correlation between the fact that most trump supporters have a high school education or less( emphasis on or less) and most of them come from rural areas(where educational systems are usually lacking in quality) . I.e. ignorant rednecks. All stats and polling data support this.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Rezlooper
not to burst your bubble but all polls are totally unreliable and the popular vote is not what elects president it is the electoral college votes and they can vote what ever way they want.

If the electoral college went totally against the will of the people, you would see a huge revolt. This would include people voting out every incumbent in office.

LITERALLY...The electoral college went against the will of the people in 2004. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college.

Really? It was in 2000. And the electoral college went the way they were supposed to vote, by the popular vote per their state.

Do you realize some states allow the electoral votes to be given to any candidate the electoral vote rep wants, even if it doesn't reflect the votes from their state?

The Constitution and federal law do not require electors to abide by the results of the popular vote in their states, so occasionally “faithless electors” go rogue and cast ballots for candidates other than the one to whom they are pledged. A slight majority of states require electors to cast their votes as pledged, although no “faithless elector” has ever been prosecuted.

Source

Just by chance, I'm definitely assuming with your critical-thinking capacity - 'possibly' - but can you point to an instance in which this "faithless elector" ever caused a difference in the outcome in the general election. I'm gonna go a bit further, I assume that on the mere fact the passage you quote reminds us that no one has every been prosecuted for being such; in critically thinking this suggests: no. Not once have "faithless electors" have never made a difference in the electoral vote. Thus, the election of Prez has never been affected by "faithless electors".

To the OP, once again this poll suffers from self-selection bias. No big deal. Things can be learned from it if you can drill down into the data, but it by, no means, is close to reality. I've read a couple good replies, but doesn't seem to be a place (this thread) to breakdown sampling, rigor, confidence intervals, etc., but for anyone in university and taking any stats/math/social sciences this is a very good example of self-selection bias.

double post