The real reason the polls got it wrong.

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3851
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The real reason the polls got it wrong.

 You'll be hearing a million reasons why the polls got it wrong, except the right answer: Pollsters are human, humans are inclined to be lazy.

For years, I wondered why TV stations put on so much crap. People I knew didn't like the crap either. I asked them if they've ever been surveyed about anything(TV, politics, etc...). They all reported they've never been polled for anything. I thought this was strange that pollsters claim to be so accurate, yet no one ever seems to surveyed.

So I posted on here and asked if anyone had ever been polled, Matt Schizzle replied that he was a Nielsen family. So I nevered wondered again why TV ratings and polls are so skewed. They way oversample irrational people with no life. A pollster would have an impossible time ever reaching me. I don't take calls or mail from people I don't knowb. I don't have time to talk to people asking me something in the mall. Pollsters get losers with no life because they are easy to find, anxious to give their opinion and have lots of time to answer questions. So they way oversample people like Brian and way undersample people like me.

Polling is a kind of science. They reason there is so much bad science and polling is that saying 'I don't know' is not a good career move. Good science and polling requires hard work.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13184
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A subject I can agree with

A subject I can agree with you on. It isn't even possible to properly test polls because companies keep their methods secret. But there are so many ways they can go wrong that I generally ignore them. There are huge sections of the population that never do surveys, and no way to survey at random. There's no way to prevent bias in results.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 what I find interesting,

 what I find interesting, is that Trump just proved that money doesn't buy a presidential election. Hillary outspent him 2 to 1, and received significantly more support from the evil outside corporations brought about by Citizens United. You have to go far back to find a Presidential candidate win while spending a mere $250 million.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 what I find interesting,

 what I find interesting, is that Trump just proved that money doesn't buy a presidential election. Hillary outspent him 2 to 1, and received significantly more support from the evil outside corporations brought about by Citizens United. You have to go far back to find a Presidential candidate win while spending a mere $250 million.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: what I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 what I find interesting, is that Trump just proved that money doesn't buy a presidential election. Hillary outspent him 2 to 1, and received significantly more support from the evil outside corporations brought about by Citizens United. You have to go far back to find a Presidential candidate win while spending a mere $250 million.

 

And Obama also proved that twice. What this DOES prove is the level of fucking ignorance in this country. This was no landslide but just enough anti intelecual WWE Duck Dynasty Jerry Springer morons who simply outnumbered the sane to the polls.

That sick fuck is still on the party that gave us Reagan's failed trickle up economics and 36 years of continued gerrymandering. If you think that billionaire is going to do shit for the people that got him ellected you are an idiot. This proves that humans are stupid and far too often are willing to vote against their own self interests. 

i have learned one thing though, polls are certainly NOT scientific. I do wonder however, since those are businesses, if they have an interest in making them look accurate knowing it can as it clearly did this time, lull people into a false sense of security.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 what I find interesting, is that Trump just proved that money doesn't buy a presidential election. Hillary outspent him 2 to 1, and received significantly more support from the evil outside corporations brought about by Citizens United. You have to go far back to find a Presidential candidate win while spending a mere $250 million.

 

And Obama also proved that twice.

No he didn't, Obama raised over 700 million both times and outspent McCain 2 to  1. As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Quote:

That sick fuck is still on the party that gave us Reagan's failed trickle up economics and 36 years of continued gerrymandering. If you think that billionaire is going to do shit for the people that got him ellected you are an idiot. This proves that humans are stupid and far too often are willing to vote against their own self interests. 

That sick fuck is talking about implementing every stupid policy you have been calling for as the solution for the last decade. He wants high tariffs to stop the "race to the bottom", is anti free trade, supports high government spending on infrastructure and punishments for companies that dare consider relocation. As I've been telling you for a decade, such policies are highly damaging to the economy. The only reason you aren't calling him Messiah is because he was elected as a Republican. Otherwise, he would certainly be held up alongside your butt buddy Nick.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13184
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In the short term it would

In the short term it would be damaging to the economy, but in the long term it could help restore the industrial sector of North America. I have to admit there are some things he's promised that could be cool. Kinda depends how crazy he really is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:In the short

Vastet wrote:
In the short term it would be damaging to the economy, but in the long term it could help restore the industrial sector of North America. I have to admit there are some things he's promised that could be cool. Kinda depends how crazy he really is.

Tariffs in the past have been abject failures. They cause significantly more expensive goods for everyone for the benefit of a few. The idea that somehow manufacturing jobs are coming back to the US is absurd. US built factories will be highly automated because American workers are expensive. So you get a handful of jobs for more expensive products. Meanwhile, you devastate the poorest people in the world. To what end? We don't have a job shortage, so why be greedy? Seeking to bring back manufacturing jobs is as insane as trying to bring back farming jobs and go back to a 90% agrarian society. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
From the safe distance

 

of Australia, I was surprised DT won, given his treatment of women. 

My thinking with polls is that they suffer a range of weaknesses - loaded questions, over-generalisation, small sample sizes, as well as running up against human unwillingness to publically admit a position they hold that is denounced as morally wrong.

Interesting times. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13184
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
In the short term it would be damaging to the economy, but in the long term it could help restore the industrial sector of North America. I have to admit there are some things he's promised that could be cool. Kinda depends how crazy he really is.

Tariffs in the past have been abject failures. They cause significantly more expensive goods for everyone for the benefit of a few. The idea that somehow manufacturing jobs are coming back to the US is absurd. US built factories will be highly automated because American workers are expensive. So you get a handful of jobs for more expensive products. Meanwhile, you devastate the poorest people in the world. To what end? We don't have a job shortage, so why be greedy? Seeking to bring back manufacturing jobs is as insane as trying to bring back farming jobs and go back to a 90% agrarian society. 

Manufacturing jobs aren't actually my focus here, though there would still be quite a few. Machines can't do everything.
It's the industry itself that is important, however. Having industry reduces cost and dependence and strengthens both education and the economy far more than any trade deal could, given the current context in which there are few things the US and Canada need to import. Fact is the US can't do squat for the world if it can't even take care of itself.

Also, it wouldn't be a bad thing to reinvent the agricultural industry. We're one or two wrong moves from its complete collapse.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Then there's

 

 

automatic assertion from liberal commentators that all who supported Trump are racist misogynists, though 30 per cent of Latinos supported him and 13 per cent of black men and 53 per cent of white women.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

automatic assertion from liberal commentators that all who supported Trump are racist misogynists, though 30 per cent of Latinos supported him and 13 per cent of black men and 53 per cent of white women.  

Yes, from my seat the media made a much larger ordeal about misogyny, racism etc than regular people did. Around the bar, you very rarely heard anyone talking about the outrageous things Trump said in a negative way. The Hillary campaign really dropped the ball by focusing on the smear effort. Odd considering her husband's campaign coined the phrase "it's the economy stupid". In many ways, this election was in similar conditions- a slow, but not terrible economy with a lack of optimism about the immediate future.

The American people proved with Bill that they don't care about scandal or objectifying women all that much. And Hillary's campaign running the add of Trump saying "and you can tell them, to go fuck themselves" might as well have been a pro Trump add. Most everyone wants to tell politicians to go fuck themselves, left and right. The Hillary campaign just ignored the anger at DC and that just made her appear even more just another politician.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 what I find interesting, is that Trump just proved that money doesn't buy a presidential election. Hillary outspent him 2 to 1, and received significantly more support from the evil outside corporations brought about by Citizens United. You have to go far back to find a Presidential candidate win while spending a mere $250 million.

 

And Obama also proved that twice.

No he didn't, Obama raised over 700 million both times and outspent McCain 2 to  1. As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Quote:

That sick fuck is still on the party that gave us Reagan's failed trickle up economics and 36 years of continued gerrymandering. If you think that billionaire is going to do shit for the people that got him ellected you are an idiot. This proves that humans are stupid and far too often are willing to vote against their own self interests. 

That sick fuck is talking about implementing every stupid policy you have been calling for as the solution for the last decade. He wants high tariffs to stop the "race to the bottom", is anti free trade, supports high government spending on infrastructure and punishments for companies that dare consider relocation. As I've been telling you for a decade, such policies are highly damaging to the economy. The only reason you aren't calling him Messiah is because he was elected as a Republican. Otherwise, he would certainly be held up alongside your butt buddy Nick.

 

Fuck you. The only part over the years this proves and has FOR both parties is that you cant count your ducks before they hatch. We assumed with both GORE and Hillary. WE fumbled and the only thing I amit to is we have SUCKED at our ground game since Reagan and only really seem to care about 1 office.

Put the money asside we are still a growingly LIBERAL country. Both GORE and Hillary won the popular vote so fuck you if you think Trump's win is some mandate. No, all it proves is that they focused on what mattered, geography and used vile tactics of "otherism" to prey upon the economicly desprate. 

 

You are a fucking idiot if you think Trump's policies he has put forth will make things better. THE CBO has said consistantly that the wall he keeps talking about is impossible and would bankrupt us if he tried it and only an idiot thinks he can get Mexico to pay for it. Only an idiot thinks wages will rise if we simply create more part time jobs with pay that does not meet the cost of living. Trump has done exactly what Reagan did that started all this, but only without the hate of Trump. Trump won by selling hate and fear but won becuse of the same tactics that have given the GOP the majority of local and state governments and governorships. GEOGRAPHY. 

 

WE fumbled because we allowed apathy and got stuck on demographics. Unless dems stop getting distracted by that we will be limited in political competition and will continue to be hled hostage by 19th century hate and archaric economics.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13184
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian is proved wrong so he

Brian is proved wrong so he insults people and makes up more shit to be proved wrong. Brian is exactly like Trump.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Fuck you.

Brian37 wrote:

 

Fuck you. The only part over the years this proves and has FOR both parties is that you cant count your ducks before they hatch. We assumed with both GORE and Hillary. WE fumbled and the only thing I amit to is we have SUCKED at our ground game since Reagan and only really seem to care about 1 office.

Put the money asside we are still a growingly LIBERAL country. Both GORE and Hillary won the popular vote so fuck you if you think Trump's win is some mandate. No, all it proves is that they focused on what mattered, geography and used vile tactics of "otherism" to prey upon the economicly desprate. 

 

You say "we" as if you have something to do with it. My sole point was that Trump won with an enormous monetary disadvantage.

 

Quote:

You are a fucking idiot if you think Trump's policies he has put forth will make things better. THE CBO has said consistantly that the wall he keeps talking about is impossible and would bankrupt us if he tried it and only an idiot thinks he can get Mexico to pay for it. Only an idiot thinks wages will rise if we simply create more part time jobs with pay that does not meet the cost of living. Trump has done exactly what Reagan did that started all this, but only without the hate of Trump. Trump won by selling hate and fear but won becuse of the same tactics that have given the GOP the majority of local and state governments and governorships. GEOGRAPHY. 

Yes, you are a fucking idiot. For years I have argued with you and have advocated free trade. Other than tax cuts and some vague promises about reducing regulation, Trump's specific policy stands are precisely what YOU have called for, right down to reimplementing the Glass-Steagall act. For years I have told you such ideas were idiotic. Nice of you to finally admit I was right.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3851
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:i have learned

Brian37 wrote:

i have learned one thing though, polls are certainly NOT scientific. I do wonder however, since those are businesses, if they have an interest in making them look accurate knowing it can as it clearly did this time, lull people into a false sense of security.

 

Polling is method that is used science. It is used accurately all the time in many different fields. So you can't call it NOT scientific.

The cause of bad polling is just like all bad science: Faulty assumptions, being lazy about collecting data, telling people what they want to hear, political bias and not saying "I don't know", to avoid looking like an idiot.

In this case the media wanted to hear Clinton would win. Polls like the USC poll were critisized for saying the race was close, so they changed and came more in line with what the NY Times wanted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html?_r=0

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13184
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I can call polling

I can call polling unscientific. It is literally impossible for polling to be scientific. That's half the reason businesses who conduct polls keep their methods secret.

There's a reason that only a census gets recorded and treated seriously, and that reason is that a census is scientific. It isn't perfect, it doesn't get a response from every single individual. But it hits well above the 90% range.

A poll is ridiculous. You can't call 10 people (randomly or otherwise) in New York City and assume the entire city believes the same thing, and that is exactly what opinion polls do.

One of the last official polls surveyed only 1804 people across 50 states and claimed an error margin of 3%. That's patently ridiculous. 0.00001% of the population does not and cannot ever represent the entire population. In truth, the error margin was 99.99999% exactly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3851
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I can call

Vastet wrote:
I can call polling unscientific. It is literally impossible for polling to be scientific. That's half the reason businesses who conduct polls keep their methods secret. There's a reason that only a census gets recorded and treated seriously, and that reason is that a census is scientific. It isn't perfect, it doesn't get a response from every single individual. But it hits well above the 90% range. A poll is ridiculous. You can't call 10 people (randomly or otherwise) in New York City and assume the entire city believes the same thing, and that is exactly what opinion polls do. One of the last official polls surveyed only 1804 people across 50 states and claimed an error margin of 3%. That's patently ridiculous. 0.00001% of the population does not and cannot ever represent the entire population. In truth, the error margin was 99.99999% exactly.

No it is a science. Just like in climate science, medicine or any other field, there is good work and bad. Science can't do things like determine the number stars in universe or determine if someone has a genetic mutation without sampling a small amount and then extrapolating.

True, the "margin of error" is a bullshit concept invented to explain things to the unwashed masses. It is all about probabilites of an outcome if you can get a truely random sample.

The problem here is just laziness. It was way too much work to find the people that are too busy to be easily polled.

 

BTW, I do believe this poll that Sanders could have beatten Trump.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-poll-bernie-sanders-trump_us_58260f7ee4b0c4b63b0c6928

I don't understand why Bernie didn't go after Clinton for the email server. He should have said this made her unelectable, but he refused. The fix was in. The Dems are the party of Wall Street.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13184
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:No it is a

EXC wrote:
No it is a science.

It's a science the same way homeopathy is. Which is to say it isn't a science at all, just bullshit.

EXC wrote:
Just like in climate science, medicine or any other field,

No. All those fields use comprehensive census-like data, not cherry picked poll-like data.

EXC wrote:
Science can't do things like determine the number stars in universe or determine if someone has a genetic mutation without sampling a small amount and then extrapolating.

Science hasn't determined the number of stars in the universe. We've gone over this before. Recently. Pay attention.
Determining mutations is not accomplished by extrapolation. It is determined by identifying the mutation, which cannot be accomplished by extrapolation but by comprehensive examination.

EXC wrote:
True, the "margin of error" is a bullshit concept invented to explain things to the unwashed masses. It is all about probabilites of an outcome if you can get a truely random sample.

Except a truly random sample is impossible, and no field of science accepts data that has a 99.99999% margin of error. In order for data to be accepted in science, you need huge sample sizes tested repeatedly. One survey of 0.00001% of an available population isn't even remotely credible under any circumstances. A hundred surveys each consisting of 1% of the population in a hundred different random samples that were consistent would be open to error, but the results would be trustworthy and scientific. Opinion polls are as scientific as religion.

EXC wrote:
I don't understand why Bernie didn't go after Clinton for the email server. He should have said this made her unelectable, but he refused. The fix was in. The Dems are the party of Wall Street.

Bernie had no chance no matter what he did (and, by the way, he did go after her on the e-mails for awhile, until it was clear...). The democrats rigged the primaries against him.

Clinton's e-mail's had nothing of significance anyway.

Both parties are beholden to wall street. Both parties resisted the popular candidate. The only difference is none of the republican leaders thought Trump had a chance until it was way too late, while the democrats foresaw Bernie would win easily and took steps before it was too late.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.