actually, it is entirely mathematically possible within the acceptable error levels of these polls, which is usually 6-7%......
Gallup poll.
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
actually, it is entirely mathematically possible within the acceptable error levels of these polls, which is usually 6-7%......
there's levels of error within these polls
the only thing i'm not saying is what that error is without any damn proof.
it can be sampling error, or it can be misunderstanding the question.. .who knows.
you were the ones getting all specific 'democrats are oversampled' with no proof whatsoever
i suggest reading a book every once in a while so you can comprehend conversation a bit better my friend....
the only thing i'm not saying is what that error is without any damn proof.
it can be sampling error, or it can be misunderstanding the question.. .who knows.
you were the ones getting all specific 'democrats are oversampled' with no proof whatsoever
i suggest reading a book every once in a while so you can comprehend conversation a bit better my friend....
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
huh funny how that works
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You dont get it and I dont really give enough of a shit to try much longer.
We proved why democrats were oversampled by showing they were being ... Oversampled. You were the ones saying that pollsters are geniuses that took all that shit into account.
You cant handle the fact that we were right so you are trying to re-write history in order to assuage your trampled feelings because you didnt bother to listen to us in the past.
Buck up...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Actually I agree with FreedomWorks.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Horseshit.
I've consistently said the polls are full of shit and using 2008 turnout figures is ludicrous. I stand by that, if the polls are still oversampling Dems by 8-9%' and they are, then I still say they're full of shit and Romney's lead is even greater than they reflect. I haven't wavered an inch from that position.
I've now seen five focus groups of undecided voters and they are virtually identical in their findings. Roughly 75% of the folks said they were likely to vote for Romney. If the undecideds are moving to Romney and the enthusiasm of Dems is lower than it was in '08 and Republican enthusiasm is up from '08, how are they justifying the use of '08 percentages in their polls. It would be funny if it weren't so painfully obvious and pathetic.
I've consistently said the polls are full of shit and using 2008 turnout figures is ludicrous. I stand by that, if the polls are still oversampling Dems by 8-9%' and they are, then I still say they're full of shit and Romney's lead is even greater than they reflect. I haven't wavered an inch from that position.
I've now seen five focus groups of undecided voters and they are virtually identical in their findings. Roughly 75% of the folks said they were likely to vote for Romney. If the undecideds are moving to Romney and the enthusiasm of Dems is lower than it was in '08 and Republican enthusiasm is up from '08, how are they justifying the use of '08 percentages in their polls. It would be funny if it weren't so painfully obvious and pathetic.
SirGreenThumb
Well-Known Member
DAMN YO! 
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
You dont get it and I dont really give enough of a shit to try much longer.
We proved why democrats were oversampled by showing they were being ... Oversampled. You were the ones saying that pollsters are geniuses that took all that shit into account.
You cant handle the fact that we were right so you are trying to re-write history in order to assuage your trampled feelings because you didnt bother to listen to us in the past.
Buck up...
How did these predictions work out for you science denying, douchebag republicans?
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
A black Negro? He never told me he was a black Negro. Thank you. Boy, just when you think you get to know somebody. I'm gonna go confront him with this information right now. Wow... Mark... a black Negro! I haven't been a Republican since 1992 when I voted for Perot. But, we've already covered that several times.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
No shit Sherlock. Apparently, you can't grasp the concept that someone can vote for a candidate OUTSIDE his or her party affiliation. I never said or alluded to Perot being a Republican, I clearly stated that was when I was last registered as a Republican. You have two ears and one mouth, you should listen twice as much as you talk, chucklehead.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Not well, however, thank you for posting further proof I was saying 6-7%, not 10. Nitwit.And how did your brave(read foolish) prediction work out, wombat?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
You said 10+ percent too.
Turns out your pathetic mental calculus was off by 10+ percent.
I got florida wrong by 1 percent and was fooled by polls in colorado, both inconsequential. Science, how does that work?
Bur hey, maybe you are right about anthropogenic climate change and all those scientists are just wrong?
LOL!
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Yes, enjoy the victory. There is no question I gave the populace FAR more credit than they deserved. Fortunately or unfortunately in this case, time will reveal the harsh reality that simply convincing a majority of people you can find your ass with both hands, in no way proves you can actually do it.In the same way that enough time has transpired that so many of the dire and earth-shattering ramifications of climate change have been exposed as complete junk science. REMEMBERTHESPOTTEDOWL.ORG
Similar threads
