[POLL] WILL TRUMP BE ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM?

[TwitchySeal]

don't believe any statistics you haven't falsified yourself, these are full of lies especially if you take cnn statistics. or msnbc

fivethirtyeight is extremely transparent about how they build their models and do a good job of explaining it in laymen terms.  
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2019/

These are data scientists ...

... And they are working in a biased environment.

Ever heard of double blind testing? Has it occurred to you THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY DOUBLE BLIND TESTING IS REQUIRED?

These assertions you have made are commonly heard, sure. But they are worthless, and we all know it.

Are you saying opinion polling in general is just useless?  Or that the guys that compile all the individual polls into a data set are useless?  

There's always a bias in any collection technique, and they are always conscious of it and working to minimize it. That's part of what goes into determining margin of error.

Do you think the bias involves the personal opinions of the polling companies? Liek they're doing it intentionally?  I know Trump loves to imply that it's the Cable News Networks just trying to make him look bad with polls, that's not how they work though.

[1715111166]

1715111166

[1715111166]

1715111166

[1715111166]

1715111166

[TECSHARE]

don't believe any statistics you haven't falsified yourself, these are full of lies especially if you take cnn statistics. or msnbc

fivethirtyeight is extremely transparent about how they build their models and do a good job of explaining it in laymen terms.  
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2019/

These are data scientists ...

... And they are working in a biased environment.

Ever heard of double blind testing? Has it occurred to you THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY DOUBLE BLIND TESTING IS REQUIRED?

These assertions you have made are commonly heard, sure. But they are worthless, and we all know it.

Are you saying opinion polling in general is just useless?  Or that the guys that compile all the individual polls into a data set are useless?  

There's always a bias in any collection technique, and they are always conscious of it and working to minimize it. That's part of what goes into determining margin of error.

Do you think the bias involves the personal opinions of the polling companies? Liek they're doing it intentionally?  I know Trump loves to imply that it's the Cable News Networks just trying to make him look bad with polls, that's not how they work though.

Polls are well known to be among the weakest form of empirical data and highly vulnerable to manipulation or even unintentional bias. There are so many variables that can be manipulated to get a desired result. At the end of the day most polling companies will produce whatever data you pay them to produce.

[Spendulus]

don't believe any statistics you haven't falsified yourself, these are full of lies especially if you take cnn statistics. or msnbc

fivethirtyeight is extremely transparent about how they build their models and do a good job of explaining it in laymen terms.  
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2019/

These are data scientists ...

... And they are working in a biased environment.

Ever heard of double blind testing? Has it occurred to you THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY DOUBLE BLIND TESTING IS REQUIRED?

These assertions you have made are commonly heard, sure. But they are worthless, and we all know it.

Are you saying opinion polling in general is just useless?  Or that the guys that compile all the individual polls into a data set are useless?  

There's always a bias in any collection technique, and they are always conscious of it and working to minimize it. That's part of what goes into determining margin of error.

Do you think the bias involves the personal opinions of the polling companies? Liek they're doing it intentionally?  I know Trump loves to imply that it's the Cable News Networks just trying to make him look bad with polls, that's not how they work though.

I think you just need to at my question, about double blind. If you know statistics, testing and a bit about experiments and populations, your answer is right there.

[BADecker]

To get an idea of how out of touch the majority of the forum (P&S, anyway) is with what's actually happening in politics, here are the results from a poll I posted back in October.



The majority of votes went to "He won't be impeached."

The majority of voters in this poll chose "Yes" to the question will Trump win a second term.

Quite frankly, you guys just don't know as much as you think you do.

What do you mean by you guys? I'm not a conservative. I don't follow anyone. It's just obvious, they're trying to impeach him over nothing, people are not that naive. It makes the Democrats look like babies.

I was obviously referring to people who chose the option "He won't be impeached", because he was impeached.

Anybody can impeach someone or something. Impeach the stars out of the sky. The point is the effect. In Trump's case, the impeachment serves to improve his chance for re-election.

[TwitchySeal]

I think you just need to at my question, about double blind. If you know statistics, testing and a bit about experiments and populations, your answer is right there.

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore it.

Ever heard of double blind testing? Has it occurred to you THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY DOUBLE BLIND TESTING IS REQUIRED?

Yes.  Yes.

I'm interested in your thoughts still.

Are you saying opinion polling in general is just useless?  Or that the guys that compile all the individual polls into a data set are useless?  

There's always a bias in any collection technique, and they are always conscious of it and working to minimize it. That's part of what goes into determining margin of error.

Do you think the bias involves the personal opinions of the polling companies? Liek they're doing it intentionally?  I know Trump loves to imply that it's the Cable News Networks just trying to make him look bad with polls, that's not how they work though.

Polls are well known to be among the weakest form of empirical data and highly vulnerable to manipulation or even unintentional bias. There are so many variables that can be manipulated to get a desired result. At the end of the day most polling companies will produce whatever data you pay them to produce.

I don't think opinion polling is considered empirical data, outliers happen and there is always a margin of error.

There's plenty of historical data that shows that polling companies have been pretty accurate over the past few decades.

To figure out how accurate political opinion polls are, all we have to do is look at the historical data since we know the results of the actual election.
This chart takes weighted average of all reputable polling companies, there's also data on each individual company and other data that could be considered, but, in general, the polls are able to get within a few %.


There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size.

I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general.

https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=courses

[eddie13]

I was obviously referring to people who chose the option "He won't be impeached", because he was impeached.

He seems to still be the president..
Polls look good to me..
Trump will win as long as the odds say he has a minimum of 2% or so chance to win..  
I think I chose "deep state"...

[TECSHARE]

Polls are well known to be among the weakest form of empirical data and highly vulnerable to manipulation or even unintentional bias. There are so many variables that can be manipulated to get a desired result. At the end of the day most polling companies will produce whatever data you pay them to produce.

I don't think opinion polling is considered empirical data, outliers happen and there is always a margin of error.

There's plenty of historical data that shows that polling companies have been pretty accurate over the past few decades.

To figure out how accurate political opinion polls are, all we have to do is look at the historical data since we know the results of the actual election.
This chart takes weighted average of all reputable polling companies, there's also data on each individual company and other data that could be considered, but, in general, the polls are able to get within a few %.


There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size.

I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general.

https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=courses

Polls are reliable, just look at these other statistics processed just like these polls to prove the polls are statistically polling correctly, statistically speaking. Who gets to decide which polling companies are reputable? That is not even to mention how polls are reported on.

Unless you are an expert in statistics and polling like 90% of people are not, there are way too many variables to know if data is manipulated in all of these types of data aggregation. If you are sick, you can hyper focus in on one blood cell and that is the fact of the matter for that cell there, but it is not telling you much about the rest of the body. This inversion of context and subject or hyper focus on one or the other is easily used to obfuscate the big picture, and polls as well as statistics are known to be easily massaged to get a desired result.

[TwitchySeal]

Polls are well known to be among the weakest form of empirical data and highly vulnerable to manipulation or even unintentional bias. There are so many variables that can be manipulated to get a desired result. At the end of the day most polling companies will produce whatever data you pay them to produce.

I don't think opinion polling is considered empirical data, outliers happen and there is always a margin of error.

There's plenty of historical data that shows that polling companies have been pretty accurate over the past few decades.

To figure out how accurate political opinion polls are, all we have to do is look at the historical data since we know the results of the actual election.
This chart takes weighted average of all reputable polling companies, there's also data on each individual company and other data that could be considered, but, in general, the polls are able to get within a few %.


There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size.

I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general.

https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=courses

Polls are reliable, just look at these other statistics processed just like these polls to prove the polls are statistically polling correctly, statistically speaking. Who gets to decide which polling companies are reputable? That is not even to mention how polls are reported on.

Unless you are an expert in statistics and polling like 90% of people are not, there are way too many variables to know if data is manipulated in all of these types of data aggregation. If you are sick, you can hyper focus in on one blood cell and that is the fact of the matter for that cell there, but it is not telling you much about the rest of the body. This inversion of context and subject or hyper focus on one or the other is easily used to obfuscate the big picture, and polls as well as statistics are known to be easily massaged to get a desired result.

You don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand that at the very least polls are not just worthless.

The most simple way is to compare the polls from right before the election with the actual result of the election. (electoral college is a different since it's 50 different elections each weighted differently, I'm talking about a single election where each person polls responds A or B)

If a poll has 2% more responses saying they will vote Democrat than Republican, and a Republican wins by 3%, that's a 5 point error.
The same goes if the Democrat won by 7%, it would still be a 5 point error.

Reputable polling companies average around 5-point errors after several years or decades of 100+ elections a year.

I think the general public hold pollsters to unreasonable standards. For example if one poll has a Democrat winning by 1% and another poll has a Republican winning by 10%, and the Republican ends up winning by 1% everyone would just conclude that the first poll was wrong and the second was right.

It's not about wrong or right.  It's about getting the average error % as low as possible.

[johnwest]

With all the drama going on in the politics and airstrikes, I will not be wondered if Trump gets elected another time. The Democrats dont have any strong candidate, everyone has a negative point of their own. Who knows, Trump may start a war in order to convince people to vote for him. 

[Spendulus]

....
You don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand that at the very least polls are not just worthless.

The most simple way ....

I've worked in survey and poll design so your arguments don't impress me except in one very important respect.

You seem to illustrate an example of the bending of survey and opinion results to suit your personal desired narrative.

May I suggest, instead of just protesting, think about that a bit. It's likely not just you but perhaps most people in such work. Just like most reporters think they are unbiased, but to us outside of their field that's laughable.

[TECSHARE]

....
You don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand that at the very least polls are not just worthless.

The most simple way ....

I've worked in survey and poll design so your arguments don't impress me except in one very important respect.

You seem to illustrate an example of the bending of survey and opinion results to suit your personal desired narrative.

May I suggest, instead of just protesting, think about that a bit. It's likely not just you but perhaps most people in such work. Just like most reporters think they are unbiased, but to us outside of their field that's laughable.

Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best.

BTW twitchy if you are going to quote me in your sig please at least link the source.

[TwitchySeal]

Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best.

BTW twitchy if you are going to quote me in your sig please at least link the source.

An indicator is exactly what they are. I wish I would've just said that pages ago.

I'll add the link, and I'll remove the whole thing if it bothers you.  I just think it's funny.

[TECSHARE]

Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best.

BTW twitchy if you are going to quote me in your sig please at least link the source.

An indicator is exactly what they are. I wish I would've just said that pages ago.

I'll add the link, and I'll remove the whole thing if it bothers you.  I just think it's funny.

It being bright is an indicator it may be daylight. However it might be a bus about to run you over. Oh it doesn't bother me I just want people to see that you endorse forced injections on remote minority populations after they are done looking at my inflammatory remarks.

[Spendulus]

....
You don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand that at the very least polls are not just worthless.

The most simple way ....

I've worked in survey and poll design so your arguments don't impress me except in one very important respect.

You seem to illustrate an example of the bending of survey and opinion results to suit your personal desired narrative.

May I suggest, instead of just protesting, think about that a bit. It's likely not just you but perhaps most people in such work. Just like most reporters think they are unbiased, but to us outside of their field that's laughable.

Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best.
....

Polls certainly are worthless, when used dimensionally for confirmation bias. That literally consists of a product of confirmation bias being used for confirmation bias.

[KingScorpio]

....
You don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand that at the very least polls are not just worthless.

The most simple way ....

I've worked in survey and poll design so your arguments don't impress me except in one very important respect.

You seem to illustrate an example of the bending of survey and opinion results to suit your personal desired narrative.

May I suggest, instead of just protesting, think about that a bit. It's likely not just you but perhaps most people in such work. Just like most reporters think they are unbiased, but to us outside of their field that's laughable.

Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best.
....

Polls certainly are worthless, when used dimensionally for confirmation bias.

true especially if the population feels intimidated to say what they truly think, like it was the case during the trump election, democrats and liberals accused everyone not on their side to be racist while many white americans increasingly considered the democrats to be racist, they never cared about that, until trump got elected.

[Spendulus]

....

There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size.

I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general.

https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=courses

4.8 or 5.2% is not "accurate." It is EXTREMELY INACCURATE.

I suggest you have a look at Taleb, the black swan, and the Thanksgiving Turkey problem.

[TwitchySeal]

....

There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size.

I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general.

https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=courses

4.8 or 5.2% is not "accurate." It is EXTREMELY INACCURATE.

I suggest you have a look at Taleb, the black swan, and the Thanksgiving Turkey problem.

Are you implying that polling techniques haven't done enough to adapt with changes over time and that they used to be more accurate than they are now?

[BADecker]

I was obviously referring to people who chose the option "He won't be impeached", because he was impeached.

He seems to still be the president..

That's not being disputed.

It's not even being disputed that we know it's not being disputed.

[Sujoris]

I was obviously referring to people who chose the option "He won't be impeached", because he was impeached.

He seems to still be the president..

That's not being disputed.

It's not even being disputed that we know it's not being disputed.

He's a fucktard foobar and he lost. I wanna know if the winner of this bet was paid..

[Sujoris]

He's a fucktard foobar and he lost. I wanna know if the winner of this bet was paid..

Haha. Yes he was, or they were rather.

Man, what a wild ride the last year has been.

If anything the results of this poll illustrate how lopsided the forum is politically.

The election was indeed close, but in the end Trump lost fair and square.

Too bad his staunchest supporters can't perform the slightest bit of introspection -- that's why they supported him, after all. But if they could, perhaps they'd save themselves from being duped so hard by an obvious con man next time around.

It is no secret that the political supporters of Trump are the elite fringe filth that has been lurking in America ever since it was first formed. The civil war, the black protests are the causes and effects of the extreme left ideologies that people foster over there. It's a shame that the same filth exists in a progressive field like Blockchain.

But I guess that is also natural. Since they had money, they invested early. Since they were socially isolated, they adapted to anything online more easily than the progressive yet slow mainstream centrists and moderate right wings.