Harvard/Harris Poll: 3-in-4 Voters Favor ‘America First’ Immigration, Trade, War Platform from Candidates

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, Tahoma said:

No, not all polls are shams.  But, non-randomized polls are a sham.  They don't meet the requirements for scientific polling. 

 

The 2016 national poll on the presidential race was very accurate.  Some of the state polls were off by the margin of error or slightly more.  But, to disparage all polls because of this overlooks the fact that those polls were close.  Meanwhile, non-random online polls are notorious for being highly skewed.  

Close???  You mean the ones which predicted Trump would never get elected were correct, and we have an illegal president sitting today?  We REALLY need to get the FBI to look into this for us!

 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

17 hours ago, Tahoma said:

No, not all polls are shams.  But, non-randomized polls are a sham.  They don't meet the requirements for scientific polling. 

 

The 2016 national poll on the presidential race was very accurate.  Some of the state polls were off by the margin of error or slightly more.  But, to disparage all polls because of this overlooks the fact that those polls were close.  Meanwhile, non-random online polls are notorious for being highly skewed.  

Actually the Realclearpotics/LA Times poll had Trump up a couple points right before the election. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Actually the Realclearpotics/LA Times poll had Trump up a couple points right before the election. 

 

  People tend to overlook what actually happened sometimes. The polls were up and down for months. Sure if you focus on three weeks before the election, Trump was caught up in the access Hollywood scandal and Hillary had a good lead in most of the polls. Forward to a couple of days before the election and Hillary's emails were back in the news and Trump had closed the gap in most polls and was ahead in some.

 

  I'm not sure why people make such a big deal of what the polls had been. If the election was held on Oct 17th it would be significant that Hillary had a 6 point lead then. Since the election was on Nov 8th, the reality of all polls is, it's not that relevant what people were polling on any other day except that one.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

27 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  People tend to overlook what actually happened sometimes. The polls were up and down for months. Sure if you focus on three weeks before the election, Trump was caught up in the access Hollywood scandal and Hillary had a good lead in most of the polls. Forward to a couple of days before the election and Hillary's emails were back in the news and Trump had closed the gap in most polls and was ahead in some.

 

  I'm not sure why people make such a big deal of what the polls had been. If the election was held on Oct 17th it would be significant that Hillary had a 6 point lead then. Since the election was on Nov 8th, the reality of all polls is, it's not that relevant what people were polling on any other day except that one.

There you go bringing logic into the discussion. Killjoy.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  People tend to overlook what actually happened sometimes. The polls were up and down for months. Sure if you focus on three weeks before the election, Trump was caught up in the access Hollywood scandal and Hillary had a good lead in most of the polls. Forward to a couple of days before the election and Hillary's emails were back in the news and Trump had closed the gap in most polls and was ahead in some.

 

  I'm not sure why people make such a big deal of what the polls had been. If the election was held on Oct 17th it would be significant that Hillary had a 6 point lead then. Since the election was on Nov 8th, the reality of all polls is, it's not that relevant what people were polling on any other day except that one.

I know you are smart enough to understand this.  But so many people love to point at polls as if they really mean anything significant (like the recent locked thread).  Polls only indicate what the poll-takers want them to mean.

 

The only poll that mattered in 2016 was the one on Nov. 8th.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

33 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I know you are smart enough to understand this.  But so many people love to point at polls as if they really mean anything significant (like the recent locked thread).  Polls only indicate what the poll-takers want them to mean.

 

The only poll that mattered in 2016 was the one on Nov. 8th.

 

  Right, that's what I said, all polls are that way. If you made a poll today for who would win Superbowl 54 it would likely be the Patriots. If Tom Brady breaks his leg in December you would get a different poll result. Doesn't mean people are wrong or stupid today. It just means the farther away you poll from something, the more likely things are to change, so the polls are inherently inaccurate the further away the event in question is.

 

   The recent locked thread wasn't locked because of the poll, it was because of the direction the discussion was going. Which begs the question if the polls are so inaccurate and meaningless, why react that way over them. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

55 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Right, that's what I said, all polls are that way. If you made a poll today for who would win Superbowl 54 it would likely be the Patriots. If Tom Brady breaks his leg in December you would get a different poll result. Doesn't mean people are wrong or stupid today. It just means the farther away you poll from something, the more likely things are to change, so the polls are inherently inaccurate the further away the event in question is.

 

   The recent locked thread wasn't locked because of the poll, it was because of the direction the discussion was going. Which begs the question if the polls are so inaccurate and meaningless, why react that way over them. 

No, it was locked because someone took offense to the term TDS.  Which just solidifies the concept as a real thing.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,319]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

No, it was locked because someone took offense to the term TDS.  Which just solidifies the concept as a real thing.

I think from my reading it is ok to use it in general, just not directed toward an individual. After 5 years it suddenly become offensive somehow. But its cool, I am all about the TOS and supporting their fluid nature 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

18 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

No, it was locked because someone took offense to the term TDS.  Which just solidifies the concept as a real thing.

 

   That was added after the fact. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I think from my reading it is ok to use it in general, just not directed toward an individual. After 5 years it suddenly become offensive somehow. But its cool, I am all about the TOS and supporting their fluid nature 

 

   That has happened with several other labels that have been used over the years. Benign at first perhaps, but by nature, if the term can be considered demeaning and is continually used against a certain group, you are going to end up against the TOS. In which case you cannot win. Best to argue the point, and if the point is really that far out that it elicits such terminology, then it shouldn't be that hard to shoot it down with a coherent argument of your own.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,319]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   That has happened with several other labels that have been used over the years. Benign at first perhaps, but by nature, if the term can be considered demeaning and is continually used against a certain group, you are going to end up against the TOS. In which case you cannot win. Best to argue the point, and if the point is really that far out that it elicits such terminology, then it shouldn't be that hard to shoot it down with a coherent argument of your own.

coherent argument Boy please 😂