“Mother of All Caravans” Heading To Mexico

I challenge you to find any LEGITIMATE source of information that contradicts the information that I cited. Not someone's opinion but rather a poll from a reputable polling firm. Even Rasmussen.

I fully understand that when a poll agrees with one's POV, independent of the source, people will say how wonderful that polling firm is. When the poll from the same polling firm disagrees with one's POV, the polling firm is biased. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wow speedy chill, you get wound up like a 8 day clock when someone pokes alittle fun at you, so was all them polls that said Hillary was going to win by a landslide they weren't LEGITIMATE polls

Hey dilbert looks like bamscram is wanting to get together with you

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

Don't worry rod, you and dilbert like the same guy.

Hey dilbert looks like bamscram is wanting to get together with you

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

Don't worry rod, you and dilbert like the same guy.

Don't worry rod, I and dilbert like the same guy.


Originally Posted by bamscram(Ekim)

So .. let's sum this up, shall we? we're somewhere between agent Orange and shoot to kill???


BAHHAAHAA

Originally Posted by bamscram

So .. let's sum this up, shall we? we're somewhere between agent Orange and shoot to kill???


BAHHAAHAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Or this....



….in order to handle the Mother of All Caravans....



….one needs the Mother of Dragons, right?

Hot rods honey, ain't he sweet.

Hot rods honey, ain't he sweet.


Originally Posted by bamscram

A likely New Candidate for POTUS running as Democrat.
Platform- Invade Bruinei and donate all it's assets to LGBTQ causes.

For- the Soylent Green New Deal - a new diet for America/

For- a separate LGBTQ Congress and POTUS
For- Free condoms, and a cure for HIV.

Against - any form of responsibility for Self,

For- Taxation of the Rich for re-distribution to LGBTQ pockets.

For- Reparations for discrimination against LGBTQ - even if only imaginary.
for- new national anthem - "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy"
And -"The beat Goes ON"

A likely New Candidate for POTUS running as Democrat.
Platform- Invade Bruinei and donate all it's assets to LGBTQ causes.

For- the Soylent Green New Deal - a new diet for America/

For- a separate LGBTQ Congress and POTUS
For- Free condoms, and a cure for HIV.

Against - any form of responsibility for Self,

For- Taxation of the Rich for re-distribution to LGBTQ pockets.

For- Reparations for discrimination against LGBTQ - even if only imaginary.
for- new national anthem - "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy"
And -"The beat Goes ON" Originally Posted by oeb11

Please stay on topic. This is not about those on the rights sexual preferences

A likely New Candidate for POTUS running as Democrat.
Platform- Invade Bruinei and donate all it's assets to LGBTQ causes.

For- the Soylent Green New Deal - a new diet for America/

For- a separate LGBTQ Congress and POTUS
For- Free condoms, and a cure for HIV.

Against - any form of responsibility for Self,

For- Taxation of the Rich for re-distribution to LGBTQ pockets.

For- Reparations for discrimination against LGBTQ - even if only imaginary.
for- new national anthem - "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy"
And -"The beat Goes ON" Originally Posted by oeb11

naw, the rod is one of you guys.

Hot rods honey, ain't he sweet.
Originally Posted by bamscram

Please stay on topic. Originally Posted by themystic

You need to tell bamscram that, not OEB! or does he get a pass???

I challenge you to find any LEGITIMATE source of information that contradicts the information that I cited. Not someone's opinion but rather a poll from a reputable polling firm. Even Rasmussen. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You "think" a "poll" is "information" as opposed to "opinion"?

Or do you consider "information" to be "opinion"?

Let's just start at the "conclusion" and work backwards ....

The "conclusion" aka "results" are an interpretation of statistical data, so what one "sees" published by a "POLLSTER" is the OPINION of the "INTERPRETER" of the data, which is WHY the results have a "statistical significance" factor and a "margin of error" in the OPINION RESULTS.

Since you like "up East" stuff, I'll give it to you from Cambridge!

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...y/english/poll

"poll....
​
"a study of a group’s opinion on a subject, in which people are questioned and their answers examined..":

I guess you neglected to take a "statistics" course. It showed in 2016, when just a handful of days before the Fall election you proudly pronounced that Trump had no chance.

Now let's start at the bottom .... Writing the questions!!!!

John Kerry in 2004 paid attention to the "exit polls" too from Ohio and flew "home" to Boston for his victory party instead of working Ohio on election day. But John Kerry has been a loser since he decided to be another JFK.

You "think" a "poll" is "information" as opposed to "opinion"?

Or do you consider "information" to be "opinion"?

Let's just start at the "conclusion" and work backwards ....

The "conclusion" aka "results" are an interpretation of statistical data, so what one "sees" published by a "POLLSTER" is the OPINION of the "INTERPRETER" of the data, which is WHY the results have a "statistical significance" factor and a "margin of error" in the OPINION RESULTS.

Since you like "up East" stuff, I'll give it to you from Cambridge!



I guess you neglected to take a "statistics" course. It showed in 2016, when just a handful of days before the Fall election you proudly pronounced that Trump had no chance.

Now let's start at the bottom .... Writing the questions!!!!

John Kerry in 2004 paid attention to the "exit polls" too from Ohio and flew "home" to Boston for his victory party instead of working Ohio on election day. But John Kerry has been a loser since he decided to be another JFK. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually anyone who had taken a statistics course would have predicted a Clinton victory in 2016. My use of statistics enabled me to very accurately predict the 2018 mid-term elections. More accurately than anyone else on this forum -- including you.

Take a course in Market Research 101 and get back to me. Yes, polls are based on the OPINIONS of those individuals polled. But the results are based on a random sample of people.

When the information from a poll is presented to the public, there is very little interpretation going on. A question is asked: "Which Democratic candidate do you prefer in the 2020 presidential election?". A list of all known or predicted candidates is given. "Other" is a valid answer. The results of the poll are printed. No interpretation needed.

The reason why there is a "statistical significance" factor and a "margin of error" has NOTHING to do with the interpretation of the polling results.

"Most surveys report margin of error in a manner such as: “the results of this survey are accurate at the 95% confidence level plus or minus 3 percentage points.” That is the error that can result from the process of selecting the sample. It suggests what the upper and lower bounds of the results are."


https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/poll...g-fundamentals

Actually anyone who had taken a statistics course would have predicted a Clinton victory in 2016. My use of statistics enabled me to very accurately predict the 2018 mid-term elections. More accurately than anyone else on this forum -- including you.

Take a course in Market Research 101 and get back to me. Yes, polls are based on the OPINIONS of those individuals polled. But the results are based on a random sample of people.

When the information from a poll is presented to the public, there is very little interpretation going on. A question is asked: "Which Democratic candidate do you prefer in the 2020 presidential election?". A list of all known or predicted candidates is given. "Other" is a valid answer. The results of the poll are printed. No interpretation needed.

The reason why there is a "statistical significance" factor and a "margin of error" has NOTHING to do with the interpretation of the polling results.

"Most surveys report margin of error in a manner such as: “the results of this survey are accurate at the 95% confidence level plus or minus 3 percentage points.” That is the error that can result from the process of selecting the sample. It suggests what the upper and lower bounds of the results are."


https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/poll...g-fundamentals Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There was no great magic in 2018. No special use of statistics. It played out almost exactly the way the polling data showed and stayed largely within the margins of error. I predicted exactly what happened as well, but certainly don't tout any special use of statistics.

House to Dems by no record setting margin. Senate remains fairly static with some Republican gains.

2016 was also within the margin of error for most of the polls out there too, just went to the underdog by the couple points. It was entirely pundits that predicted Clinton's massive win, not so much the pollsters. And the pundits got left with egg on their faces.

But to the question of polling questions, there is an art to the writing of questions and then advertising the answers. While you choose a very straightforward one as an example, a better one is.

Question : Do you support universal healthcare?
Answer : Yes - 70% plus now support it.

Question : Do you support universal healthcare if it means giving up your current plan and paying a larger share?
Answer : No - Only 13% or so support that.

Easy to play games with polls just by questions alone. And in the political world it also easy to manipulate samples as not really being random.