Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Go ahead and explain how those "scientific polls" were taken since you seem to know what they are.
They don't let people vote an infinite amount of times, for starters.
Also a person winning or losing is personal opinion, not based on "science"
Then why did you cite polls?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I thought I was Dolos. 🙄Wow, you are completely f*cking delusional.
In either case, your reply is the perfect example: you didn't actually respond to anything that I said. Because you can't. EDIT: wow, as usual, you then make some meager edits to your post. 👆
And no, I'm not impressed that you could memorize some terms in your political science classes, while clearly failing to actually understand anything, as evidenced by the drivel with which you've been spamming these forums. I could do your masters in my sleep. Could you skip all but three classes in partial differential equations and then earn the highest grade on the exam that the professor had ever seen? No? Interesting.
This is how dumb you are "Hewhoknowsall." You spend all your time on here trying to challenge me, who you deem as "intellectually inferior," yet that only goes to show how dumb you really are.
Have you ever heard the term "who's the fool, the fool or the fool who follows the fool" I would think you would have heard that since it was Obi-Wan. But go ahead and keep going with your "I am superior to you cos you don't believe in scientific polls."
I have asked you on multiple occasions to explain how those scientific debate polls were taking.
You never were able to come up with an answer. Also I would not believe a single thing CNN says. So your whole "you dont believe the polls makes you dumb" is just a stupid argument.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I have asked you on multiple occasions to explain how those scientific debate polls were taking.
1. They don't let people vote an infinite number of times, like yours do.
2. They compare sample and population demographics and weight results accordingly.
3. They go in-depth with respect to how the respondents answer particular questions.
4. Their conclusions are corroborated in the betting markets and post-debate poll shifts.
Your move. 👆
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I cite the most accurate polls in 2004, 2008 and 2012 which was the IBD/TIPP poll. Seriously, you have a learning disability, I have said this over and over.
You cited Rasmussen as the most accurate poll in 2012, while linking to an article that literally picked it out as being one of the least accurate. This is basically you.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
WTF does this have to do with debate polls?You can't even follow a train of thought properly.
Clown.
"A total of 521 adult registered voters who watched the debate were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers
calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with
a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".'
Gee no wonder Trump lost the "scientific poll"
It was over sampled, and you like a moron believed it😂
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Clown."A total of 521 adult registered voters who watched the debate were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers
and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
calling both landline and cell phones.[b] Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans,
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with
a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".'Gee no wonder Trump lost the "scientific poll"
It was over sampled, and you like a moron believed it😂 [/B]
Another epic fail from you: the ratio of voters who said Hillary won : democrats reported is much higher than the opposite, .i.e., Hillary won in that poll even when you adjust for the bolded sampling skew.
And what does this have to do with the IBD poll that you cited?
So no, you still lose. 👆
No you👆
Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to pro
Deal with your epic loss.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Another epic fail from you: the ratio of voters who said Hillary won : democrats reported is much higher than the opposite, .i.e., Hillary won in that poll even when you adjust for the bolded sampling skew.And what does this have to do with the IBD poll that you cited?
So no, you still lose. 👆
The IBD is the most accurate poll in all the elections, how many effing times do I have to say that?? JFC what the hell is your problem, its like you are just trolling to fcking troll.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No you👆Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to proDeal with your epic loss.
*sigh* Let me spell this out for you.
Hillary Clinton won 54% of the self-identified independents in that poll. In other words, if we get rid of the sampling bias and just look at essentially undecided voters, Hillary still won.
Likewise, she won a greater percentage of Democrats than Trump did Republicans.
So the "over sampling" doesn't matter. 👆
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The IBD is the most accurate poll in all the elections, how many effing times do I have to say that?? JFC what the hell is your problem, its like you are just trolling to fcking troll.
We were talking about debate polls, not election polls. You're clearly confused.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
*sigh* Let me spell this out for you.Hillary Clinton won 54% of the self-identified independents in that poll. In other words, if we get rid of the sampling bias and just look at essentially undecided voters, Hillary still won.
Likewise, she won a greater percentage of Democrats than Trump did Republicans.
So the "over sampling" doesn't matter. 👆
Nice so you pulled that out of your ass cause thats not what I quoted.
CNN/ORC Methodology
METHODOLOGY
A total of 521 adult registered voters who watched the debate were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers
calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with
a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".
Originally posted by The EllimistOh don't worry about it, there's no ethics involved. All I'm saying is, you'll do a better job at convincing people you're really smart and wise if you conduct yourself with a little grace, a little subtlety, and a touch more self-deprecating humour. It can sting to do, but in the end more people will believe you and listen to you.
I don't see how I'm oblivious; I don't deny that I'm arrogant on internet forums, just like how you presumably don't deny that you're a rhetorical smart*ss. The ethical difference is pretty null. 👆
Pretty much no one here above your age group thinks much of you and that's mostly due to your attitude. Do a 180 on that, reassess your public persona, and you'll start raking in the kudos from all the other smug internet c*nts who think way too goddamn highly of themselves. C*nts like me.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nice so you pulled that out of your ass
Actually I just bothered to read the data instead of just the introduction.
Page 9 shows that Hillary won independents 54 vs. 33, and a greater share of Democrats than she lost Republicans. This means that even if you adjust for the number of democrats over-sampled, she still won.