Please explain, people wanting change vs Obama approval rating

[Jhhnn]

My bad they have only owned the House of Representatives over the 112th and 113th, not both Mr Clueless.

Repubs have held a blocking position in the Senate when they gained 41 seats back in 2010 after Brown replaced Kennedy. They've taken hostages ever since.

 

[pcgeek11]

Not just his opinion but the entire country. Maybe the BODs didn't participate in the polls because Obama rigged them

They polled the entire country? They didn't ask me yet.

Polls are subjective depending on the people that were polled.

You are also entitled to your opinion also.

 

[ivwshane]

They polled the entire country? They didn't ask me yet.

Polls are subjective depending on the people that were polled.

You are also entitled to your opinion also.

I've gotta quote this for posterity!

Lol!

 

[Jhhnn]

So if people want change & hold Obama in high regard maybe they want more of the kind of change he's wrought & advocates.

It's the only way those things fit together.

 

[pcgeek11]

I've gotta quote this for posterity!

Lol!

They polled the entire country? They didn't ask me yet.

Polls are subjective depending on the people that were polled.

Well if they had a poll and only asked a certain demographic or an uneven sampling then the poll wouldn't be accurate. It has happened on purpose and found out before.... some even recently.

Are you claiming that polls are never skewed?

 

[Jhhnn]

They polled the entire country? They didn't ask me yet.

Polls are subjective depending on the people that were polled.

Well if they had a poll and only asked a certain demographic or an uneven sampling then the poll wouldn't be accurate. It has happened on purpose and found out before.... some even recently.

Are you claiming that polls are never skewed?

When we put recent polls together your bullshit gets trampled into the dirt-

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-favorable-rating

 

[pcgeek11]

When we put recent polls together your bullshit gets trampled into the dirt-

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-favorable-rating

So you are saying it Never Happens?

Just a yes or a no answer will be adequate.

 

[HomerJS]

They polled the entire country? They didn't ask me yet.

Polls are subjective depending on the people that were polled.

Well if they had a poll and only asked a certain demographic or an uneven sampling then the poll wouldn't be accurate. It has happened on purpose and found out before.... some even recently.

Are you claiming that polls are never skewed?

Don't be a maroon. They didn't change the polling method just for these results. You are like the crazies who claim the unemployment numbers are rigged when how its done hasn't changed in years.

BTW - In case you missed statistics class polling is done using samples which can be more accurate then trying to call every person.

 

[pcgeek11]

Don't be a maroon. They didn't change the polling method just for these results. You are like the crazies who claim the unemployment numbers are rigged when how its done hasn't changed in years.

BTW - In case you missed statistics class polling is done using samples which can be more accurate then trying to call every person.

That was sarcasm about polling the entire country. Get your meter checked.

I didn't refer to any specific poll(s). There have been cases where the poll was in fact purposely skewed to get the desired results. Don't be obtuse.

I don't know if this particular poll was skewed or not. It is possible, you shouldn't act like it isn't.

 

[HomerJS]

That was sarcasm about polling the entire country. Get your meter checked.

I didn't refer to any specific poll(s). There have been cases where the pols were in fact purposely skewed to get the desired results. Don't be obtuse.

Pull up a poll with a question you think is skewed. Absent that its just you foaming at the mouth. Which explains a lot.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you are saying it Never Happens?

Just a yes or a no answer will be adequate.

So you're putting words in my mouth?

You tried to pull the usual shit of attacking the source when the information doesn't confirm your own bias. When that fails, you contend it hasn't.

Do yourself a favor- engage in a teensy bit of research before shooting your mouth off. Otherwise you come off as a blowhard & an ignoramus, deservedly so.

 

[pcgeek11]

So you're putting words in my mouth?

You tried to pull the usual shit of attacking the source when the information doesn't confirm your own bias. When that fails, you contend it hasn't.

Do yourself a favor- engage in a teensy bit of research before shooting your mouth off. Otherwise you come off as a blowhard & an ignoramus, deservedly so.

I attacked no source. I simply made a statement of fact that some polls are skewed to achieve the desired results it happens. I didn't say this particular poll was or was not. You appear to be claiming this is false and doesn't happen.

I then asked you for a simple yes or no answer. Which you refuse to say, but talk around the question like you always do.

 

[fskimospy]

I attacked no source. I simply made a statement of fact that some polls are skewed to achieve the desired results it happens. I didn't say this particular poll was or was not. You appear to be claiming this is false and doesn't happen.

I then asked you for a simple yes or no answer. Which you refuse to say, but talk around the question like you always do.

Your argument is pretty weak though. While it is possible for a poll to be skewed it is uncommon among professional pollsters as accurate polls is how they make their living. The general presumption should be that polls are at least broadly accurate.

 

[pcgeek11]

Pull up a poll with a question you think is skewed. Absent that its just you foaming at the mouth. Which explains a lot.

Sorry, but I'm not foaming at all. It is and has been obvious the last few elections that polls mean pretty much nothing.


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-03/political-polling-needs-a-21st-century-update

And there is this:


CBS released a poll Wednesday that shows Hillary Clinton with a big six point lead over Donald Trump.

But when you look at the data you see that they oversampled Democrats and that the race is virtually tied — even after the non-stop drubbing Trump is getting from the press on a daily basis.
Sierra Rayne at American Thinker reported:

CBS News is now pushing the pro-Hillary Clinton polls in rapid fashion. Late on Wednesday, this media outlet released the results of a national poll claiming to show that Clinton holds a 6% advantage over Donald Trump in the direct head-to-head matchup.

Apparently, the poll “was conducted by telephone June 9-13, 2016 among a random sample of 1,280 adults nationwide, including 1,048 registered voters[.] … The data have been weighted to reflect U.S. Census figures on demographic variables.”

However, based on the polling details, the final weighted sample of 976 registered voters is made up of just 28% Republicans and 35% Democrats.

In the unweighted sample of registered voters, the relative percentage by party was 29% Republicans and 35% Democrats.

So, during the weighting process, the poll increased the Democrat-Republican spread from 6% to 7%. This relative weighting should have been headed in the other direction.

According to nationwide polling data, Republican Party affiliation has averaged 28% for 2016 so far, and it also averaged 28% since the start of May. This agrees well with the CBS News poll’s composition.

On the other hand, the last time the Democrats were at 35% was early March…of 2013. Since May of this year, Democratic party affiliation has averaged 29%, just 1% higher than the Republicans, not 7% higher.

As a result, this CBS News poll appears to be biased in favor of the Democrats by the same margin that Clinton purportedly holds over Trump, meaning that if the bias is removed, so is Clinton’s lead, and we have a statistical tie.

Likewise, NBC reported Hillary Clinton opened up a 7 point lead over Donald Trump this week. But, once again, if you correct for oversampling of Democrats you find the race is virtually tied.
The Daily Mail reported:

Hillary Clinton has opened up a 7-point lead over Donald Trump in an online poll that seems to reflect a ‘bounce’ for the former secretary of state after she wrapped up the Democratic nomination last week.

But the weekly tracking poll, from NBC News and the Surveymonkey company, included the opinions of 7 per cent more self-identified Democrats than Republicans – the same margin as the poll’s topline result.

That raises questions about the 49-42 result…

…he most recent Gallup polling on the subject, published in January, found the Democrats had just a 3 per cent advantage nationally. In that same survey, Republican-dominated states outnumbered those populated mostly by Democrats, by a 20-12 margin.

The raw information collected by Surveymonkey each week has generated a distribution of Democrats and Republicans that appears random, and it’s unclear how much it was tweaked to fall in line with Census and Labor Department numbers.

The polling data show nearly all the organization’s results this year have ‘oversampled’ Democrats. But one week’s results, published in January, included more Republicans.

Adding the sampling disparity to the poll’s margins of error, each of the last six week’s results can be seen as a dead heat if Democrats and Republicans were to come to the polls in roughly equal numbers this year.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-03/political-polling-needs-a-21st-century-update

CBS released a poll Wednesday that shows Hillary Clinton with a big six point lead over Donald Trump.

But when you look at the data you see that they oversampled Democrats and that the race is virtually tied — even after the non-stop drubbing Trump is getting from the press on a daily basis.
Sierra Rayne at American Thinker reported:

CBS News is now pushing the pro-Hillary Clinton polls in rapid fashion. Late on Wednesday, this media outlet released the results of a national poll claiming to show that Clinton holds a 6% advantage over Donald Trump in the direct head-to-head matchup.

Apparently, the poll “was conducted by telephone June 9-13, 2016 among a random sample of 1,280 adults nationwide, including 1,048 registered voters[.] … The data have been weighted to reflect U.S. Census figures on demographic variables.”

However, based on the polling details, the final weighted sample of 976 registered voters is made up of just 28% Republicans and 35% Democrats.

In the unweighted sample of registered voters, the relative percentage by party was 29% Republicans and 35% Democrats.

So, during the weighting process, the poll increased the Democrat-Republican spread from 6% to 7%. This relative weighting should have been headed in the other direction.

According to nationwide polling data, Republican Party affiliation has averaged 28% for 2016 so far, and it also averaged 28% since the start of May. This agrees well with the CBS News poll’s composition.

On the other hand, the last time the Democrats were at 35% was early March…of 2013. Since May of this year, Democratic party affiliation has averaged 29%, just 1% higher than the Republicans, not 7% higher.

As a result, this CBS News poll appears to be biased in favor of the Democrats by the same margin that Clinton purportedly holds over Trump, meaning that if the bias is removed, so is Clinton’s lead, and we have a statistical tie.

Likewise, NBC reported Hillary Clinton opened up a 7 point lead over Donald Trump this week. But, once again, if you correct for oversampling of Democrats you find the race is virtually tied.
The Daily Mail reported:

Hillary Clinton has opened up a 7-point lead over Donald Trump in an online poll that seems to reflect a ‘bounce’ for the former secretary of state after she wrapped up the Democratic nomination last week.

But the weekly tracking poll, from NBC News and the Surveymonkey company, included the opinions of 7 per cent more self-identified Democrats than Republicans – the same margin as the poll’s topline result.

That raises questions about the 49-42 result…

…he most recent Gallup polling on the subject, published in January, found the Democrats had just a 3 per cent advantage nationally. In that same survey, Republican-dominated states outnumbered those populated mostly by Democrats, by a 20-12 margin.

The raw information collected by Surveymonkey each week has generated a distribution of Democrats and Republicans that appears random, and it’s unclear how much it was tweaked to fall in line with Census and Labor Department numbers.

The polling data show nearly all the organization’s results this year have ‘oversampled’ Democrats. But one week’s results, published in January, included more Republicans.

Adding the sampling disparity to the poll’s margins of error, each of the last six week’s results can be seen as a dead heat if Democrats and Republicans were to come to the polls in roughly equal numbers this year.

Both of these articles represent an extremely poor understanding of how scientific polling works.

They are making the same mistake that Dean Chambers of 'Unskewed Polls' infamy made in 2012. There is no such thing as 'oversampling' Democrats (or Republicans) as partisan ID is an OUTPUT of a poll, not an input. You do not weight polls based on partisan ID because partisan ID is one of the things you are asking about. Think about this logically, have you changed what party you identify with at any time in your life or has anyone you know changed party ID? If we adjusted to keep party ID constant at all times then when one of these changes happened a pollster would deliberately be zeroing that change out in order to keep the party ID distribution constant. Does that seem like a good idea to you?

These polls were conducted correctly and those criticisms you just linked to are incompetent. There is no logical or statistical basis for making the adjustments they are calling for and no competent pollster would ever adjust for party ID.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/

 

[pcgeek11]

Both of these articles represent an extremely poor understanding of how scientific polling works.

They are making the same mistake that Dean Chambers of 'Unskewed Polls' infamy made in 2012. There is no such thing as 'oversampling' Democrats (or Republicans) as partisan ID is an OUTPUT of a poll, not an input. You do not weight polls based on partisan ID because partisan ID is one of the things you are asking about. Think about this logically, have you changed what party you identify with at any time in your life or has anyone you know changed party ID? If we adjusted to keep party ID constant at all times then when one of these changes happened a pollster would deliberately be zeroing that change out in order to keep the party ID distribution constant. Does that seem like a good idea to you?

These polls were conducted correctly and those criticisms you just linked to are incompetent. There is no logical or statistical basis for making the adjustments they are calling for and no competent pollster would ever adjust for party ID.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/

OK, believe what ever you want. I don't buy it.

 

[fskimospy]

OK, believe what ever you want.

Can you explain why you believe polls should adjust for party ID? Did you read 538's article about why that's nonsense?

You seriously just made an identical argument to the 'unskewed polls' guy in 2012. How did that turn out for him? Do you think his argument was accurate then? If not, why use it now?

 

[HomerJS]

Sorry, but I'm not foaming at all. It is and has been obvious the last few elections that polls mean pretty much nothing.


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-03/political-polling-needs-a-21st-century-update

And there is this:


CBS released a poll Wednesday that shows Hillary Clinton with a big six point lead over Donald Trump.

But when you look at the data you see that they oversampled Democrats and that the race is virtually tied — even after the non-stop drubbing Trump is getting from the press on a daily basis.
Sierra Rayne at American Thinker reported:

CBS News is now pushing the pro-Hillary Clinton polls in rapid fashion. Late on Wednesday, this media outlet released the results of a national poll claiming to show that Clinton holds a 6% advantage over Donald Trump in the direct head-to-head matchup.

Apparently, the poll “was conducted by telephone June 9-13, 2016 among a random sample of 1,280 adults nationwide, including 1,048 registered voters[.] … The data have been weighted to reflect U.S. Census figures on demographic variables.”

However, based on the polling details, the final weighted sample of 976 registered voters is made up of just 28% Republicans and 35% Democrats.

In the unweighted sample of registered voters, the relative percentage by party was 29% Republicans and 35% Democrats.

So, during the weighting process, the poll increased the Democrat-Republican spread from 6% to 7%. This relative weighting should have been headed in the other direction.

According to nationwide polling data, Republican Party affiliation has averaged 28% for 2016 so far, and it also averaged 28% since the start of May. This agrees well with the CBS News poll’s composition.

On the other hand, the last time the Democrats were at 35% was early March…of 2013. Since May of this year, Democratic party affiliation has averaged 29%, just 1% higher than the Republicans, not 7% higher.

As a result, this CBS News poll appears to be biased in favor of the Democrats by the same margin that Clinton purportedly holds over Trump, meaning that if the bias is removed, so is Clinton’s lead, and we have a statistical tie.

Likewise, NBC reported Hillary Clinton opened up a 7 point lead over Donald Trump this week. But, once again, if you correct for oversampling of Democrats you find the race is virtually tied.
The Daily Mail reported:

Hillary Clinton has opened up a 7-point lead over Donald Trump in an online poll that seems to reflect a ‘bounce’ for the former secretary of state after she wrapped up the Democratic nomination last week.

But the weekly tracking poll, from NBC News and the Surveymonkey company, included the opinions of 7 per cent more self-identified Democrats than Republicans – the same margin as the poll’s topline result.

That raises questions about the 49-42 result…

…he most recent Gallup polling on the subject, published in January, found the Democrats had just a 3 per cent advantage nationally. In that same survey, Republican-dominated states outnumbered those populated mostly by Democrats, by a 20-12 margin.

The raw information collected by Surveymonkey each week has generated a distribution of Democrats and Republicans that appears random, and it’s unclear how much it was tweaked to fall in line with Census and Labor Department numbers.

The polling data show nearly all the organization’s results this year have ‘oversampled’ Democrats. But one week’s results, published in January, included more Republicans.

Adding the sampling disparity to the poll’s margins of error, each of the last six week’s results can be seen as a dead heat if Democrats and Republicans were to come to the polls in roughly equal numbers this year.

One person does not a conclusion make. Besides you people(intent) were claiming oversampled Democrats all the way up to election night of 2008 and we all know what happened.

 

[Jhhnn]

Adding the sampling disparity to the poll’s margins of error, each of the last six week’s results can be seen as a dead heat if Democrats and Republicans were to come to the polls in roughly equal numbers this year.

Non-whackadoodle Republicans are as repulsed by Trump as Democrats so that obviously won't happen.

 

[woolfe9998]

Both of these articles represent an extremely poor understanding of how scientific polling works.

They are making the same mistake that Dean Chambers of 'Unskewed Polls' infamy made in 2012. There is no such thing as 'oversampling' Democrats (or Republicans) as partisan ID is an OUTPUT of a poll, not an input. You do not weight polls based on partisan ID because partisan ID is one of the things you are asking about. Think about this logically, have you changed what party you identify with at any time in your life or has anyone you know changed party ID? If we adjusted to keep party ID constant at all times then when one of these changes happened a pollster would deliberately be zeroing that change out in order to keep the party ID distribution constant. Does that seem like a good idea to you?

These polls were conducted correctly and those criticisms you just linked to are incompetent. There is no logical or statistical basis for making the adjustments they are calling for and no competent pollster would ever adjust for party ID.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/

No need to even explain it. Those polls which they claimed needed to be "unsknewed" ultimately were too favorable to Romney by about 1 point on average. That's the thing about election polling. Every election poll has its accuracy tested by the election results. That is why all the arguments about poll skewing are a joke.

 

[fskimospy]

No need to even explain it. Those polls which they claimed needed to be "unsknewed" ultimately were too favorable to Romney by about 1 point on average. That's the thing about election polling. Every election poll has its accuracy tested by the election results. That is why all the arguments about poll skewing are a joke.

The whole idea makes no sense anyway as these are professional polling firms whose livelihood is dependent on generating accurate results. Threatening the future of their business in order to make their preferred candidate look better would be about the stupidest thing any of these firms could do.

 

[woolfe9998]

The whole idea makes no sense anyway as these are professional polling firms whose livelihood is dependent on generating accurate results. Threatening the future of their business in order to make their preferred candidate look better would be about the stupidest thing any of these firms could do.

Yup, and the fact that the election tells us how accurate they were makes it doubly absurd. A pollster's reputation is based on their predictive accuracy.

But hey, what do we know? Everything is "skewed" against the right these days, eh? Polls, economic reports, climate data....

 

[SMOGZINN]

But hey, what do we know? Everything is "skewed" against the right these days, eh? Polls, economic reports, climate data....

... Reality.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Another question, why do we keep voting them in?

Because it is the other guys politicians that are the problem not mine!

Everyone seems to believe it when their guy says that it is the other guy and (despite all the evidence to the contrary) not them that is corrupt. Basically, everyone is a fool if you know the right words to say to fool them. Psychology has allowed the powerful to figure us out. The propaganda machine is getting damn near perfect.

 

[bradly1101]

Because it is the other guys politicians that are the problem not mine!

Everyone seems to believe it when their guy says that it is the other guy and (despite all the evidence to the contrary) not them that is corrupt. Basically, everyone is a fool if you know the right words to say to fool them. Psychology has allowed the powerful to figure us out. The propaganda machine is getting damn near perfect.

Good point. The deception has a certain amount of precision.