Trump’s Support Drops in Military Communities

  • Thread starter Thread starter randomuser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Pancake said:
Sure it was.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should go through it again, since, after two days, you seem to still miss the point. My entire premise is that polls should not be discounted because of the election. They were fairly accurate in the election as the difference between the polls and the actual popular vote were less than 2%. Polls showed Clinton winning the popular vote by 4% and she actually won it by 2.1%.
 
Jig_Saw said:
Perhaps you should go through it again, since, after two days, you seem to still miss the point. My entire premise is that polls should not be discounted because of the election. They were fairly accurate in the election as the difference between the polls and the actual popular vote were less than 2%. Polls showed Clinton winning the popular vote by 4% and she actually won it by 2.1%.
Click to expand...
You’re just too easy. Good night.
 
Jig_Saw said:
Perhaps you should go through it again, since, after two days, you seem to still miss the point. My entire premise is that polls should not be discounted because of the election. They were fairly accurate in the election as the difference between the polls and the actual popular vote were less than 2%. Polls showed Clinton winning the popular vote by 4% and she actually won it by 2.1%.
Click to expand...
It is your “premise” - However, even Pew admits the polls were off - they are not out there touting how accurate their polling data was because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by within the error of margin but they drastically under calculated the Electoral College margin, and under calculated the number of states she one … At best in the polling data analysis they were 1 for 3 … or 33.333% correct - that means they were 66.666% wrong.

Also probability and statistics is the foundation of how they extrapolate the data to a prognostication …

and you have not addressed whether the Poll could be designed and used to sway public opinion . as Polls are often used today -

So I will ask you again - Is it possible that this poll was designed to provide a certain response in order to undermine support for this President?

You do realize that there are those in the Media who would do any and all things to undermine Trump - even see it as their patriotic duty to do so …

Thus - can you admit that it is at least possible - even if you do not think it probably 🤷
 
Jig_Saw said:
My bad for using poor terminology. You are using polling to determine probabilities. Now, you have correctly stated that using the polling data to determine probabilities showed that Clinton would likely win the electoral college. That is reasonable, but that does not mean she was guaranteed to win. As you states, the New York Times upshot showed that Trump had a 15% chance of winning. Again, that does not show the polling as incorrect.

For example, the Cubs were down 3-1 in the World Series and came back to win the next three games. If the probability of the Cubs winning any one game was 0.6 (6 times out of 10), then the probability of the Cubs winning all three games would be 0.216 (1 time out of 5). Yet the Cubs did it. That does not mean that the probability of the Cubs winning any one game was higher than 0.6 though. And that is what you are suggesting in your analysis.

As far as individual states go, it is entirely irrelevant for the comparison of the national poll. The national poll showed that Clinton would win the popular vote by 4%. She won it by 2%. That indicates that the polls were correct within the margin of errors. That is what I am basing the statement on that polls are accurate and that is the only thing that matters here - not making probabilities based on the polling.
Click to expand...
I’m curious whether you majored in statistics.
 
YADA said:
It is your “premise” - However, even Pew admits the polls were off - they are not out there touting how accurate their polling data was because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by within the error of margin but they drastically under calculated the Electoral College margin, and under calculated the number of states she one … At best in the polling data analysis they were 1 for 3 … or 33.333% correct - that means they were 66.666% wrong.

Also probability and statistics is the foundation of how they extrapolate the data to a prognostication …

and you have not addressed whether the Poll could be designed and used to sway public opinion . as Polls are often used today -

So I will ask you again - Is it possible that this poll was designed to provide a certain response in order to undermine support for this President?

You do realize that there are those in the Media who would do any and all things to undermine Trump - even see it as their patriotic duty to do so …

Thus - can you admit that it is at least possible - even if you do not think it probably 🤷
Click to expand...
What you describe is not that Pew said their polls were wrong, but the probability of the electoral college victory was wrong. I don’t know if it was or wasn’t, but that isn’t what I am talking about. Like I said, the Cubs won the World Series after going down 3-1. I calculated the probability of them doing so as 21%. Because they won, it doesn’t mean the probability of the Cubs winning any given game was wrong. However, that is what you are implying.

As far as polls swaying voters, I know I believe that certain polls (Rasmussan) do have a bias. I don’t know if Pew does or not, but it would take a significant bias to create the impression that Trump is popular with the American people. Maybe Rasmussan can pull it off.
 
meltzerboy said:
You seem to have a knowledge and passion for the subject matter.
Click to expand...
I do like numbers and work in a technical field. Professionally, I have learned how to apply statistics, but I do make a lot of mistakes in vocabulary that good statisticians use correctly. That’s why it was understandable that some were confused by my first few comments, but I am perplexed how people are struggling with this idea after so many clarifications.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Ok fine.Clinton for all intent and purposes won the popular vote,so yes the polls were accurate in that regard.In the end so what?
Click to expand...
The idea that comes up over and over again here can be framed as a syllogism:
  1. The 2016 election polls were wrong
  2. The assessment of support in military communities is based on a poll
  3. Therefore the assessment is wrong.
The logic is invalid to begin with. Moreover, as you have indicated, the first premise is false.
 
dvdjs said:
The idea that comes up over and over again here can be framed as a syllogism:
  1. The 2016 election polls were wrong
  2. The assessment of support in military communities is based on a poll
  3. Therefore the assessment is wrong.
The logic is invalid to begin with. Moreover, as you have indicated, the first premise is false.
Click to expand...
Not following you, but then can anybody? #1 is not wrong
 
queenofheartscv said:
If you doubt Trump’s love of family, look at his children.
Click to expand...
You and the Trump supporters gonna explain to me his very creepy, sexualized comments regarding his daughter Ivanka? The two that come to mind, both from the campaign, are 1) his assertion that he would probably date her if she wasn’t his daughter and 2) that what they both have in common is a love of sex…
Just deeply disturbing stuff. The man is just plain weird. I will dig up the footage if you have conveniently forgotten these comments. This thrice-married man is not the champion of Catholic family values that you somehow think he is.
 
Borealis said:
Have you been there lately? $5 is the cover charge to get in now. It’s cheaper to go to a bar than Starbucks.
Click to expand...
You can still get a tall (small) regular plain jane coffee for $2.25 (CAD) at Starbucks… but $5+ for anything fancy certainly.
 
twf said:
You and the Trump supporters gonna explain to me his very creepy, sexualized comments regarding his daughter Ivanka? The two that come to mind, both from the campaign, are 1) his assertion that he would probably date her if she wasn’t his daughter and 2) that what they both have in common is a love of sex…
Just deeply disturbing stuff. The man is just plain weird. I will dig up the footage if you have conveniently forgotten these comments. This thrice-married man is not the champion of Catholic family values that you somehow think he is.
Click to expand...
Nobody has said he is a champion of Catholic family values. That is a flat out LIE
 
Michael68 said:
Nobody has said he is a champion of Catholic family values. That is a flat out LIE
Click to expand...
I was responding to a poster who said that his children demonstrate that family values are one of this core qualities. My response was, I think, fair… there’s a very weird dynamic going on when the father, in public, more than once, makes awkward sexualized comments about his adult daughter.
 
twf said:
I was responding to a poster who said that his children demonstrate that family values are one of this core qualities. My response was, I think, fair… there’s a very weird dynamic going on when the father, in public, more than once, makes awkward sexualized comments about his adult daughter.
Click to expand...
And the poster never said he exhibeted Catholic family values. You LIED
 
twf said:
I was responding to a poster who said that his children demonstrate that family values are one of this core qualities. My response was, I think, fair… there’s a very weird dynamic going on when the father, in public, more than once, makes awkward sexualized comments about his adult daughter.
Click to expand...
No Trump supporter here has ever said he demonstrates Catholic family values! Not even the most hardcore supporters.

The question now is will you admit you LIED?
 
twf said:
I was responding to a poster who said that his children demonstrate that family values are one of this core qualities. My response was, I think, fair… there’s a very weird dynamic going on when the father, in public, more than once, makes awkward sexualized comments about his adult daughter.
Click to expand...
And Hillary still lost. And Obama is no longer president and so the democrats are
powerless so nothing else to do but to unite in hate for Trump.
 
twf said:
You and the Trump supporters gonna explain to me his very creepy, sexualized comments regarding his daughter Ivanka? The two that come to mind, both from the campaign, are 1) his assertion that he would probably date her if she wasn’t his daughter and 2) that what they both have in common is a love of sex…
Just deeply disturbing stuff. The man is just plain weird. I will dig up the footage if you have conveniently forgotten these comments. This thrice-married man is not the champion of Catholic family values that you somehow think he is.
Click to expand...
Whether he is creepy or not, his daughter would know. She moved her entire family in order to help him at the White House, for free. I think she likes him and respects him as a father. But don’t let that stop you from believing obnoxious media lies. You think he’s weird. Go tell that to Jesus when you see him in heaven.

On another thought, would anybody think you weird in any way? Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top