All of a sudden, polls matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Oh I see what your problem is. You think the words accuracy and relevance mean the same thing. You are forgiven for your ignorance

So when you selectively accept the accuracy of some polls and cite them to bolster your arguments, you consider them irrelevant?

Hilarious.

You really are a clown.
 
But now they are telling us a true story?

Clearly didn't read my post. There comes some times when you are fun to speak with, then others when you do stuff like this.

Let's put what I said back in, that part you took out, then you can tell me what I said...

"the way they are weighted (with 8% D overpolling in Ohio) will place inaccuracies into the polling. If they are still using that same model and netting these results we may be looking at a far larger Romney lead than the polls are predicting."
 
Clearly didn't read my post. There comes some times when you are fun to speak with, then others when you do stuff like this. Let's put what I said back in, that part you took out, then you can tell me what I said..."the way they are weighted (with 8% D overpolling in Ohio) will place inaccuracies into the polling. If they are still using that same model and netting these results we may be looking at a far larger Romney lead than the polls are predicting."

So when Romney is leading, you suspect he may be leading by a larger margin than reported, but when Obama leads, you suspect he isn't really leading at all?
 
So when Romney is leading, you suspect he may be leading by a larger margin than reported, but when Obama leads, you suspect he isn't really leading at all?

Depending on the poll model, yes.

Let's put it this way. The exit polling in Ohio in 2008 had a 1 to 3% oversampling for Democrats when it was all said and done, and that was an accurate poll once we had the full results (not the early results which had larger oversampling and were inaccurate). Many of these polls are oversampling Ds by 8% even up to 10% in Ohio. This is ignoring the reality that in D strongholds voter registration has dropped by a few hundred thousand...

If we correct for oversampling "errors" we find that the Ohio race is pretty much an even go back when they were trying to say he had "double digit" leads and fully within the margin of error for the poll...

If they are still using this same model, and Romney is actually in the lead it doesn't bode well for the Obama team.
 
So when Romney is leading, you suspect he may be leading by a larger margin than reported, but when Obama leads, you suspect he isn't really leading at all?

So, you act like you can't read regularly so you can make up silly misleading questions?
 
What was it you said about questions that begin with "so"?

I don't know, what was it I said? Did you realize that I was simply responding to a question that began with "so" underlining what I said about questions beginning with "so"?
 
I don't know, what was it I said? Did you realize that I was simply responding to a question that began with "so" underlining what I said about questions beginning with "so"?

Do you recall what you said about questions that begin with "so", or not?
 
You have to believe it if you believe jobs numbers. But GDP is 1.3

I understand that things are going so poorly for your boy you need to cling to anything you can.

And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming
 
You have to believe it if you believe jobs numbers. But GDP is 1.3 I understand that things are going so poorly for your boy you need to cling to anything you can. And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming

So you can't add anything to the discussion beyond comedic value.
 
Looking pretty consistent to me

:bitchslap:

I have always maintained that the polls from a week ago were bogus and still maintain so. Nice try.

All this time you took off and you still majorly suck at this..

The polls last week were bogus .. but the polls today are good?

That's the point he's making .. and I agree with him.
 
Back
Top