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.

 

New ABC / WaPo Poll Shows Drop In Trump Favorability Courtesy Of Aggressive "Oversamples"

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor


Probability says you are wrong,

No it doesn't.



1000 sample size from a population of 600 million?

The number of registered voters is about 146 million. If memory serves, a population of 146 million can be estimated with a random sample of just over 1,000 people with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error.



hope you don't capability studies for a living ..... perhaps i should put the data into Minitab and get some "P" value or other "Quality" statistics

Or perhaps you should just stop talking out of your ass.


OK, remind me to not use your services when deciding on a new machine or process, unless i want to waste money


It's not "my service" or "my process." Go take a class in basic statistics. I realize you're blinded by partisan nonsense and ignorance, but statistics aren't just used for politics or opinion polls.

These processes are used in many highly reliable engineering processes that require tight tolerances.

The underlying core is mathematics.
edit on 17-1-2017 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

last post edited, have a look

2nd



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Even more unbelievable, the same polls showed Obama with an 84% approval rate going into his first term.

Depending on the narrative, at any given moment, Republicans had more disdain for Obama than Democrats do for Trump OR Obama's the greatest most popular president evah and only 16% of the country was racist &/or Deplorable, back then.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Greggers

Pretty damned accurate, except for the fact that most media outlets played everything up through election night that it take a miracle for Trump to win.

I remember seeing the Hillary lovers on ATS gloating about how Hillary had the election all sewed up.

Yeah, mostly accurate. They just got one thing wrong.


Your're confusing the actual polls with the analysis. The polls were valid statistically, and generated an accurate result.

The national polls, which predicted the popular vote, predicted a Hillary win. Hillary did in fact win the popular vote. Some of those national polls got the percentage right on. Many others came remarkably close, and a huge percentage were well within the margin of error.

The polls were valid.

What was invalid was the assumption that the EC would follow the national vote. Although it's easy to see WHY that assumption was made, as that has almost always been the case.

I doubt they'll be making that mistake again.

It was clear in my post that I was speaking of the media analysis, so no confusion on my part.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So they managed 3 words before a typo. WTF has happened to proper editing in the past 10 years. It seems to be getting worse and worse and this, three damned words in they have a typo.

Annoying.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes and if the polls were favourable you'd all be lauding them.


~Tenth


As should he.

See, if you believe CNN et al skew the polls, you would believe them to have done it even for the polls that had Trump come out favorable. They would then have skewed the polls to minimized his favorability.

And in that case the polls would be favorable IN SPITE of being polled by or for someone who seems to be anti-Trump.

So damn straight he would be lauding them.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I don`t believe that too many sane people still trust the MSM polls.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Greggers

Pretty damned accurate, except for the fact that most media outlets played everything up through election night that it take a miracle for Trump to win.

I remember seeing the Hillary lovers on ATS gloating about how Hillary had the election all sewed up.

Yeah, mostly accurate. They just got one thing wrong.


Your're confusing the actual polls with the analysis. The polls were valid statistically, and generated an accurate result.

The national polls, which predicted the popular vote, predicted a Hillary win. Hillary did in fact win the popular vote. Some of those national polls got the percentage right on. Many others came remarkably close, and a huge percentage were well within the margin of error.

The polls were valid.

What was invalid was the assumption that the EC would follow the national vote. Although it's easy to see WHY that assumption was made, as that has almost always been the case.

I doubt they'll be making that mistake again.

It was clear in my post that I was speaking of the media analysis, so no confusion on my part.


Well, it's good to know you and I agree, then.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I pay zero attention to polls anymore. Just the other day I heard one about Trump's "unfavorability" rating and I knew it was BS. The msm is out of freakin' control!



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sorry, Fox. This one is a loser too. BUMPED.
Oversampling is good for laser reading a digital recording.
Polls not so much. at all.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join