You make some valid points.
Unfortunately, the fact is that people can and do lie to pollsters, so the raw data is unreliable.
It's known as "the Bradley effect."
Why do liberals dislike america so much?
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
You make some valid points.
Unfortunately, the fact is that people can and do lie to pollsters, so the raw data is unreliable.
It's known as "the Bradley effect."
No, you don't. That is not true.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Who were you referring to here?
You and your shitbird friend are both too young to even have an opinion.
The side you support has so disrupted the economy and the average person's ability to navigate business that a sucker like you finds his best career path staying in the military. I am disgusted.
If you only had a clue what we have lost.
I used to buy a business permit for $10 / year.
I held them in many towns.
Now it takes at least a year, plus a years worth of profit to permit a business. I could go on for days about the changes your fascism have brought about.
No point though since it would all slide of Grind's
pointy head.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is certainly that factor as well.
All you are doing is trying to support your stupid false premise that is the OP.
You are just digging in on your stupidity.
There is a poll to support every cause and also agin every cause.
You stupid poll is pointless, incorrect and as I said, needlessly divisive.
Other garden variety Americans are not your enemies, fool.
Your enemies are the Oligarchs.
Idiot.
They are too young to understand what the villains they support have done. They never experienced freedom so they don't know it is gone.
Into the Night
Verified User
Guess what? It's still there. Capitalism is alive and well in America. There are still price wars on gas, even.
Customer service has lagged in many areas, that's true. The reason is a simple one; lack of training. Oppressive regulations don't help either.
People pump their own gas because they want to. Gas stations still compete on customer service though. Clean facilities, convenience stores that weren't there before, etc.
All this despite the lefties.
Into the Night
Verified User
Polls aren't science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not a poll.
Accuracy is unknown. You are assuming mathematics that was never performed, and assuming raw data that isn't there.
It negates any polls outcome. Garbage in, garbage out.
Into the Night
Verified User
How so?
Are pollsters able to determine that the responses they get are truthful?
Then there are the other issues:
Predicting the outcome of elections is an inherently chancy endeavor.
“If you look into the crystal ball,” says an experienced pollster, “you’ve got to be ready to eat ground glass.”
But pollsters’ job is getting harder. The number of people willing to answer their questions is plummeting.
Of every ten people in rich countries they contact by telephone, at least nine now refuse to talk.
Far more intractable is the bias that creeps in when samples are not representative of the electorate. Taking bigger samples does not help. The margins of error cited by pollsters refer to the caution appropriate to sampling error, not to this flaw, which is revealed only on polling day.
New political fault lines are complicating their efforts to find representative groups to question, and voters’ changing behavior blindsides them as they try to discern the truth behind polling responses.
Old political allegiances are weakening and public opinion is becoming more fickle.
Confidence in polling has been shaken. Pollsters are scrambling to regain it.
Sam Wang, a neuroscience professor at Princeton and part-time psephologist, kept a pre-election promise to eat an insect on live television if Mr Trump won more than 240 electoral-college votes.
Statistical models of election outcomes attempt to quantify the uncertainty in polls’ central findings by generating probability estimates for various outcomes. Some put Hillary Clinton’s chance of victory against Mr Trump above 99%.
To deal with non-response bias, pollsters try to correct their samples by a process known as weighting. The idea is simple: if one group is likelier to respond to a survey than another, giving a lower weight to the first group’s answers ought to set matters right.
But adjusting weights is also one of the ways pollsters can do what political scientists call “herding”. If one weighting scheme produces a seemingly outlandish result, the temptation is to tweak it. “There’s an enormous pressure for conformity,” says Ann Selzer, an American pollster. Polls can thus narrow around a false consensus, creating unwarranted certainty about the eventual outcome.
To make weighting work, pollsters must pull off two difficult tricks. The first is to divide their samples into appropriate subgroups. Age, sex, ethnicity, social class and party affiliation are perennial favorites. The second is to choose appropriate weights for each group. This is usually done with the help of a previous election’s exit poll, or the most recent census.
But the old political dividing lines are being replaced by new ones. Increasingly, samples must be weighted to match the voting population for a much larger set of characteristics than was previously needed. Levels of education, household income and vaguer measures such as people’s feelings of connection to their communities have all started to be salient.
Earlier this century, online betting exchanges beat pollsters before several big elections. Economists argued that the forecasts made by punters with money on the line were likely to be more considered than the sometimes offhand responses given to pollsters.
Far more intractable is the bias that creeps in when samples are not representative of the electorate. Taking bigger samples does not help. The margins of error cited by pollsters refer to the caution appropriate to sampling error, not to this flaw, which is revealed only on polling day.
Spotting new electoral rifts and changing electoral habits will require much more data (and data science) than pollsters now use. And picking up changing social attitudes means measuring them, too—which will take never-ending checks and adjustments, since those measurements will suffer from the same problems as pre-election polls. Pollsters will also have to improve their handling of differential turnout and undecided voters. Most accept self-reported intention to vote, which turns out to be a poor guide. And they often assume that undecided voters will either stay away or eventually split the same way as everyone else, which seems not to have been the case in recent contests.
And dealing with declining response rates will probably require new ways to contact prospective voters. During the early days of internet polling, many feared that online samples were bound to be unrepresentative, mainly because they would include too few older people.
A striking example came in 1936, when Literary Digest, a weekly American magazine, asked its affluent readers whom they would vote for in that year’s presidential election. Nearly 2 million replied. But the sample, though large, was horribly biased. Based on it, Literary Digest forecast a landslide for Alf Landon. He went on to lose all but two states to Franklin Roosevelt.
https://www.economist.com/international/2017/06/17/britains-election-is-the-latest-occasion-to-bash-pollsters
Polls are incapable of prediction the future. At best, the results make use of statistical mathematics for the summary. Statistical math does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to the use of random numbers.
You don't know shit, retard.
Gas stations changed because vehicles changed, and no, people don't like pumping their own gas, they do so because of the financial depravity that you support.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
You try to buy permits in Massachusetts, and complain about Republicans?
Again, you are an ignorant idiot. Polling is a science upon itself.
I have all the permits I need and then some.
What of my children and other young folk?
You shouldn't have to be born rich to start a business.
What happened to the level playing field concept?
People lie, and pollsters know they lie
People don’t tell the truth to pollsters, and often report that they have voted in the past when records reveal that they haven’t.
We recently surveyed 8,567 registered voters using state voter files, and asked each respondent to describe his or her voting behavior in detail.
We then compared each person’s survey response to his or her public voting history, measuring how often people say they vote, versus how often they actually vote.
The survey results were stunning: 78.1 percent of the poll’s respondents over-reported their actual voting histories.
Voting respondents fell into three main groups: those who vote in every election, those who vote only in presidential and midterm elections, and those who vote only in presidential elections. In each of these three categories, a majority of respondents over-reported their actual voting histories. Only among people who said they “never vote” did we find a majority of respondents telling the truth.
These findings highlight a particularly strong “social desirability bias” with respect to voting habits: survey respondents answer in a way they think will be viewed favorably by others, rather than simply answering truthfully.
While pollsters have known about (and tried to control for) this phenomenon for some time, this new study reflects just how pervasive this problem is throughout the electorate.
If the overwhelming majority (nearly 80 percent) of registered voters are over-reporting their past voting habits, even larger numbers of voters could be over-reporting their intent to vote in upcoming elections.
Not only can people lie about whether they vote or not, they can also lie about who they voted for - and there's no way to check.
https://www.campaignsandelections.com/campaign-insider/voters-are-lying-to-us-here-s-why-it-could-be-helpful
I didn't say it was an accurate science.