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

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

page: 7
119
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

So, confirmation bias it is then.

Thanks for your response.




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack

originally posted by: Greggers

When Trump loses, will you come back and acknowledge that scientifically conducted polls use reliable methodology, while Facebook polls have no statistical relevance?


And if he wins or it's closer than you think, will you also concede that the polls are skewed to likely democratic voters? A big unknown is also millennials who use cell phones and not landlines. They aren't loving Clinton. Or Trump.


If there is a concession to make, I'll gladly make it. Keep in mind, however, that polls do have built-in margins of error. A Trump victory within the margin of error of a large number of polls (even polls that show Hillary winning) would not necessarily mean the poll was wrong.

Now, if a poll estimated a 90/10 split with the victory going to Trump and a margin of error of +/- 3, and Trump won, then yeah, I would clearly have to concede there was something wrong with that poll.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I have issues even considering this 'viral'. Here's a picture of a monkey with 90,000 comments for your consideration.



Many Facebook threads have broken 1 million comments on single posts.

20,000 comments is like 5 Highschools.
edit on 26-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Let's assume the progression was basic: 2^(n-1) and that a generation is 5 minutes. In an hour ... with just the "I'll tell two friends and they'll tell two friends" progression ... the number of votes could be 4096

1
2
4
8
16
32
64
256
512
1024
2048
4096

Now, there's a whole host of reasons why this doesn't reflect what's going on with the "Facebook poll" ... but it does give an idea of what geometric progressions actually look like (this is the simplest btw).



That's the same as saying "Everyone on MY Facebook is of the same party as me and are voting the same way as me".

DO you honestly believe that to maintain a friendship with someone who vote Republican, their friends also have to be republican?

Is that a quiteria set for your friends? If so, that's pretty damn sad! Not everyone on my FB are republicans. I look past voting preferences, religion, race, etc...



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper


Similar results of the poll happen all the way down the thread with Trump leading about 90% to Clinton’s 10%.


I'm frankly surprised that somebody who has as in depth a knowledge of the science of global warming as you would demonstrate such an abysmal lack of critical thought when it comes to something like this.

Why do you think this poll would be equally likely to be shared/participated in by everyone? Ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: introvert


If she wins this election I will be totally convinced that America has been hijacked by the Clinton Cabal and we are all friggin' doomed!


Because of a non-scientific poll conducted on facebook?

That makes no sense.


Scientific? This poll is much more accurate than these phony polls by the media who you have no idea who they are actually calling.


How so? Theres a huge amount of bias worked into this guys friend list. Its the opposite of objective. This is just silly. Clinton is the last of all candidates I would select, but lets please step back into reality. This is not to say msm polls aren't sometimes purposely skewed, but goddam, if anyone thinks 90% of america is voting for trump, they are some gullible sobs.


No, I don't think it's actually 90%. Here's what I do believe. This poll most likely doesn't reflect the inner cities and hispanic areas are more likely behind Hillary. So, you lose some for that. It also doesn't reflect the elderly population, most of which don't have internet let alone Facebook, (and sad for that population, they are only being hammered with anti-Trump BS and not told the whole truth about Hillary on the nightly news cuz they don't have alternative news sources), so you lose some for that. Take into consideration... yes, the elderly will vote, but the inner city and hispanic areas are not going to turn out like all you Clinton supporters are hoping for. So, at best, Trump support may lose 20% off this poll nationwide. The real numbers probably lie right around Trump 70% and Clinton 30%, cuz even some of the most hardcore democrats are staying home this election. America supports Trump!



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

Horse#. You know you can read the 'Shares'? You don't just have to assume they're non-partisan. Because they aren't.

It's pretty simple, only Trump supporters SHARED it.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: StallionDuck



originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
What I thought was that the FB public was in general younger and more pro democrats.


It is. You clearly don't understand scale as Facebook has 1.7 billion users and this 'poll' has 19,000 'votes'.

Unless the Republican Party is less than 19,000 people, or the entire party does not use Facebook, almost no part of such a small number being compared to such a large number is surprising that you can deliberately draft that many votes in anyway. It makes you look sort of inept at math and technology by constantly drawing this comparison.


Using that logic, how does a "scientific" sampling poll of 1,000 likely voters mean anything when America has over 300,000,000 citizens?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

Actually what I posted has nothing to do with the dreck you're trying to turn it into.

I merely demostrated what a "geometric progression" is.

Apparently some folks don't understand the concept as we keep getting "gwarsh, how can the numbers be so high."

Now, don't mind the facts and continue with your defense of a garbage poll.




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: StallionDuck



originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
What I thought was that the FB public was in general younger and more pro democrats.


It is. You clearly don't understand scale as Facebook has 1.7 billion users and this 'poll' has 19,000 'votes'.

Unless the Republican Party is less than 19,000 people, or the entire party does not use Facebook, almost no part of such a small number being compared to such a large number is surprising that you can deliberately draft that many votes in anyway. It makes you look sort of inept at math and technology by constantly drawing this comparison.


Using that logic, how does a "scientific" sampling poll of 1,000 likely voters mean anything when America has over 300,000,000 citizens?


They sample.

Also less votes is always less accurate. It's ironic you mention 1,000 votes, these are the only polls Trump ever wins.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
As mentioned before, a similar result happened with the Brexit vote with the bookies dead set on 'remain', but looking at two maybe three Twitter hashtags for a few hours in the week leading up to the vote there was a clear split in favour of 'leave'.

The killing of Jo Cox (a British MP) did sway the responses/feedback in favour of remain due to the xenophobic connotations and barrage of abuse anyone posting a leave tweet would receive. After a rew days the momentum came back so I stuck £20 on and got around £200 back - a hesitant back but knew deep down the sentiments of the broader public.

Remember that Twitter is usually a personal and largely annonymous voice out into the world, rather than a community based one where social and professional ostracisation is in full effect.

For the party faithfuls, those primary or official hashtags have to be stuck to for the momentum to carry. For Brexit there were many undecided voters so anyone casually searching hashtags for the beacon of facts (and disinformation) would get a barrage of info.

I really think the winning percentage came down to those looking for an answer on social media. Are closet Trump supporters keeping their cards close to their chest before vote day, lest they get a lynching? It's all happened before, only months ago.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: jburg6

Its not: A legitimate or scientific accurate poll.


It is: A damn good indication of what normal people think






posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: StallionDuck

Horse#. You know you can read the 'Shares'? You don't just have to assume they're non-partisan. Because they aren't.

It's pretty simple, only Trump supporters SHARED it.


What, you don't think Hillary supporters know what a "share" button is? Hell, I'd think if that were the case and I were a Hillary supporter, I would be sending to all of my friends to get on the bandwagon and do what you say is not possible.

I also see Hillary supporters on that list. Why aren't they sharing? Do you think that they are the quiet majority?

please...



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck


That's the same as saying "Everyone on MY Facebook is of the same party as me and are voting the same way as me". DO you honestly believe that to maintain a friendship with someone who vote Republican, their friends also have to be republican?


Do you understand how social networks work? A lot of people are "friends" with people on Facebook that they don't know IRL simply because they share (or perceive that they share) some sort of affiliation. Some "friend" relationships are built solely on profile pictures for that matter. Common political affiliaton I'm sure ranks in the top 10 reasons for folks friending those that they do not know.

Then you have people like pundits, bloggers, politicians, writers, podcasters, radio hosts, etc who have followers. One of those people might reach thousands of other users.That's just scratching the surface. There are so many factors to be considered that it's simply laughable to try to "prove" anything from this.
edit on 2016-10-26 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Rezlooper



Your approach to believe anything this government or media tells you is laughable


How did you come to that conclusion from my post?



The media has been proven over and over again to be totally bias in this election. A random polling of what is passing 18,000 real people on Facebook is much more trustworthy than the media. The excuse used on Facebook to claim these are Chad Knellers friends is laughable. I doubt he has 18,000 Trump-loving friends.


Ok. You believe that because of confirmation bias. You cannot expect us to believe it as well, when it's nothing more than a popularity poll on a social media site.


Nothing more than a popularity poll? Isn't that what all of this is or any polls are? isn't that what the presidential election itself is? Just a popularity poll... so what better to place to gauge the true popular opinion than on Facebook, the largest social media site in the world, with a much larger audience than even the mainstream media.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Amazingly, mathematicians and statisticians have actually thought about some of these things, rather than going on how they "feel" about it.

Here is a basic survey size calculator that incorporates these thoughts (rather than wishes, beliefs, hopes, etc.)

BTW, the confidence interval is the "margin of error."

Play with it. You might be amazed.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: StallionDuck

Horse#. You know you can read the 'Shares'? You don't just have to assume they're non-partisan. Because they aren't.

It's pretty simple, only Trump supporters SHARED it.


What, you don't think Hillary supporters know what a "share" button is? Hell, I'd think if that were the case and I were a Hillary supporter, I would be sending to all of my friends to get on the bandwagon and do what you say is not possible.

I also see Hillary supporters on that list. Why aren't they sharing? Do you think that they are the quiet majority?

please...


1. There's no logic for a Hillary supporter to Share this, they don't falsely believe Facebook polls need to be shared or are accurate.
2. "Bandwagoning" is not only stupid, but encouraged by the right over everything, maybe your issue is understanding that you're a sheep.
3. Hillary supporters on the list aren't sharing because they have individual opinions, not bandwagon rhetoric, and don't desire to propogate a Facebook thread. They mostly aren't idiots that believe this accomplishes anything.
4. Anyone is a quiet majority compared to Trump Supporters, loudest in History.
edit on 26-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The real question in my mind is how long FB will let this go on...



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

i think its bull# that you appeal to his knowledge in a easily seen through patronizing manner, and turn right around and basically call him stupid. Dude you're not superior to anyone, you being a giant flamming SJW doesnt make you any better or somehow more accurate than anyone else. Truth is we all know polling can be wrong and has been demonstrated again again to be wrong, so the facebook poll is interesting just like all the others.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Rezlooper
Eventually, wouldn't you think it might start to balance out if America really was in support of Hillary. It should eventually reach her demographics, am I right?


No. This is a simple misinterpretation of scale. I addressed that in the next post.

There are something like 150 million Republicans. 200 millionish Americans use Facebook.

10,000 votes can easily find pockets in such large numbers. It would honestly mean little if the 'poll' got to 1 million people and retained 90%.


Lol. Truly the most ridiculous attempt to denigrate this poll I've heard yet. One million votes and it still won't have reached Hillary supporters?



new topics

top topics



 
119
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join