Mitt Romney destroyed all computer records of his governorship

[ShawnD1]

One thing we should all support is strong laws for the preservation and public availability of government records.

This is just essential, even more now than in simpler times, to deterring and having accountability for wrongdoing and democracy to have information needed.

This. Don't hate the player, hate the game. If Romney can be a heatbag while still following the rules, it means the rules are obviously flawed.

 

[SilthDraeth]

That was an online poll which is meaningless. Someone said he led in polls, I've seen no evidence he 's led in any meaningful polls.

Third place won't win any nomination.

Why are online polls meaningless? I never get polled in person, but I can participate in online polls.

I feel that in person polls must be meaningless, as they don't include me, so obviously, the people doing the polling are very selective of who they poll and or include in the results of the poll.

Ohh we can run all day here with statements that are of one opinion or another.

So back to the original question, why are online polls meaningless?

 

[ShawnD1]

Why are online polls meaningless? I never get polled in person, but I can participate in online polls.

Because they include people from other countries. I could vote for Ron Paul online but I would definitely not be called for a phone survey because I don't live in the US.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why are online polls meaningless? I never get polled in person, but I can participate in online polls.

Online polling can be affected by people voting more than once in the poll.

 

[fskimospy]

Why are online polls meaningless? I never get polled in person, but I can participate in online polls.

I feel that in person polls must be meaningless, as they don't include me, so obviously, the people doing the polling are very selective of who they poll and or include in the results of the poll.

Ohh we can run all day here with statements that are of one opinion or another.

So back to the original question, why are online polls meaningless?

Online polls are meaningless because they are not scientific. They suffer from a large number of devastating problems. Primarily these are:

1.) Response bias. Since they are voluntary to participate in, they are extremely likely to over represent people with strong opinions, giving you a biased and inaccurate sample of real opinion on the issue.
2.) Biased audience. Go look at a Fox News online poll on an issue and then go look at an MSNBC poll on the exact same issue. Even an identical question will lead to hugely different results because the samples are once again, not representative.
3.) Susceptibility to hacks. Some polls don't even bother preventing people from voting more than once, and even ones that do are frequently easily circumvented.

There are more problems, but those are the first 3 that came to mind. Online polls are completely useless.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Ok. Got ya, potential for people out of country to vote, and potential to vote more than once in a poll.

I suppose either could be abused. But so can getting called by a poller, I have a friend who was called, and he answered everything with a serious tone, but completely opposite of the way he felt to just screw with the person doing the polling.

But I digress, I accept your points that the above can happen, partially invalidating an online poll.

 

[ShawnD1]

3.) Susceptibility to hacks. Some polls don't even bother preventing people from voting more than once, and even ones that do are frequently easily circumvented.

There are more problems, but those are the first 3 that came to mind. Online polls are completely useless.

Hacks and trolling. There was a poll for which country Justin Beiber should go to, and the winner was North Korea

 

[fskimospy]

Ok. Got ya, potential for people out of country to vote, and potential to vote more than once in a poll.

I suppose either could be abused. But so can getting called by a poller, I have a friend who was called, and he answered everything with a serious tone, but completely opposite of the way he felt to just screw with the person doing the polling.

But I digress, I accept your points that the above can happen, partially invalidating an online poll.

One other thing about your friend giving wrong answers, things like that are solved by having a sufficiently large sample size because the average person answers genuinely.

 

[piasabird]

I tend to not believe what I see on Youtube too much. Video can be edited and the truth can be stretched. What people say and what they do are often 2 different things.

 

[airdata]

Ron Paul couldn't win a primary in the Houston area, including the district he represents.

By the time all of the other candidates fall by the wayside all of you republicans will be wishing you'd seen the light sooner.

But while everybody is at it bashing Ron Paul... who are you voting for? This could prove very fun. It should be a requirement that to bash Ron Paul, you have to say who you're going to vote for so that everybody can point an laugh at you to.

The republican field is an absolute joke. Crazy uncle Ron is the only candidate who is not tearing himself apart. Who are you guys going to goto next? Newt? Huntsman? LOL LOL LOL

Or are we letting the whole republican field fall off and then bring Palin in spring 2012 and go full retard up in here?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

By the time all of the other candidates fall by the wayside all of you republicans will be wishing you'd seen the light sooner.

But while everybody is at it bashing Ron Paul... who are you voting for? This could prove very fun. It should be a requirement that to bash Ron Paul, you have to say who you're going to vote for so that everybody can point an laugh at you to.

The republican field is an absolute joke. Crazy uncle Ron is the only candidate who is not tearing himself apart. Who are you guys going to goto next? Newt? Huntsman? LOL LOL LOL

Or are we letting the whole republican field fall off and then bring Palin in spring 2012 and go full retard up in here?

Anybody but Ron

 

[Vic Vega]

Wow, did they just substitute Mitt for shit in that title? So much for civility.

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm not bashing RP. I actually like some of his ideas. But he'll never, ever get the nomination, let alone become president.

 

[momeNt]

Anybody but Ron

Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama.

All superior to Ron. All willing to invade Iran for great prosperity.

It's the only real way to judge a candidate.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm waiting to see who's on the ballot for the Texas Republican primary and go from there.

 

[bfdd]

Anyone who parrots the "Ron Paul is un-electable" is nothing but a tool of the system. Who says he's not electable? You? Those in charge? Please, the guy might be "loonie", but he's no less so than anyone else trying to lead us. I'd actually venture to say he's less of a "loon" because he's very much against continuing the status quo, which seems to be all the majority of R's, D's and their followers want.

 

[Spikesoldier]

RP is unelectable because the US public at large is fucking stupid.

 

[bfdd]

RP is unelectable because the US public at large is fucking stupid.

Yup, they'll believe whatever anyone tells them. Especially if it's repeated enough.

Romney though is a snake, I thought everyone knew this? The guy IMO is more "un-electable" than Ron Paul.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

RP is unelectable because the US public at large is fucking stupid.

That's an interesting way to influence people and garner support for RP. However I guess when you support a unelectable candidate you need to do anything for attention.

 

[woolfe9999]

Anyone who parrots the "Ron Paul is un-electable" is nothing but a tool of the system. Who says he's not electable? You? Those in charge? Please, the guy might be "loonie", but he's no less so than anyone else trying to lead us. I'd actually venture to say he's less of a "loon" because he's very much against continuing the status quo, which seems to be all the majority of R's, D's and their followers want.

Every scientifically conducted poll, that's who. And it isn't just this time around. It was true in '08 as well. This isn't what someone wants to be true. It's just the truth.

 

[guyver01]

RP is unelectable because the US public at large is fucking stupid.

and how much money have you donated to his campaign?

none?

how many hours campaigning have you spent?
what? none?

thought so.

THIS is why RP is unelectable.

His supporters like to talk alot of smack about the public at large, but beside that... they do crap to get him elected.

and when they DO ... it's "you people suck... " .. yea.. i'm gonna vote for someone who's supporters talk crap to everyone they encounter. good luck with that.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yup, they'll believe whatever anyone tells them. Especially if it's repeated enough.

Romney though is a snake, I thought everyone knew this? The guy IMO is more "un-electable" than Ron Paul.

:thumbsup:

The Republicans are going with an inverse Southern Strategy if they pick Willard. That is, if Romney is the nominee, then the Democrats will have a southern sweep unlike any one since FDR ran.

 

[fskimospy]

:thumbsup:

The Republicans are going with an inverse Southern Strategy if they pick Willard. That is, if Romney is the nominee, then the Democrats will have a southern sweep unlike any one since FDR ran.

No, they sure won't.