Most Americans Don't Want Undocumented Immigrants to Leave

[Paranoid Android]

I didn't see state polls that were wildly off in aggregate.

I think people are questioning the polls now because, as demonstrated by the last few pages, many people are mathematically illiterate and don't understand what polls tell you. The right had a meltdown over the same stuff in 2012. Remember the unskewing websites and conspiracies?

Amazing how Fox stated Romney would win and even in this election they all stated had the greatest chance to win (yes pundit talk, not really polls). Yet Fox is somehow given a pass in their horrible predictions.

I hate all the bullshit that went on and as an anti-Trumper, I wanted the fear of god that Hillary might lose to turn out people. The poles for the most part were correct. The pundits messed it up.

I tried to look but admit I did not see how many states were with 200k of Trump or Hillary. I think at least 5 states and any of those states might have swung the other way and with a winner take all electoral might have changed this election. People think 300 plus electoral votes is a landslide. Far from it.

[Dadwen]

I didn't see state polls that were wildly off in aggregate.

I think people are questioning the polls now because, as demonstrated by the last few pages, many people are mathematically illiterate and don't understand what polls tell you. The right had a meltdown over the same stuff in 2012. Remember the unskewing websites and conspiracies?

here a nice Pro-poll story http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502014...rong-this-year - still stating the current issues with it, and NC looks kinda off not sure the % they was wrong (going off the company's NC poll in the first post)

[NineSpine]

here a nice Pro-poll story http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502014...rong-this-year - still stating the current issues with it, and NC looks kinda off not sure the % they was wrong (going off the company's NC poll in the first post)

I think the issue is that people are interpreting a poll to be wrong when it had a huge undecided percentage that ultimately went to Trump. Trump had huge momentum amongst undecided voters towards the end of the election cycle. Trump's gains at the end weren't Clinton's losses. They were just his gains from undecided voters.

[Paranoid Android]

here a nice Pro-poll story http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502014...rong-this-year - still stating the current issues with it, and NC looks kinda off not sure the % they was wrong (going off the company's NC poll in the first post)

Agree. All the flaws of the polls. I don't know why Trumpsters cheer this as the greatest tragedy ever. They won. People who hate Trump (not really many true Hillary supporters) should be upset in that the prediction might have tamed people not coming out an vote. The attitude of; "Well, looks like Hillary should win, so now I don't have to vote for her and still have the candidate I sort of want, win".

[Daerio]

Amazing how Fox stated Romney would win and even in this election they all stated had the greatest chance to win (yes pundit talk, not really polls). Yet Fox is somehow given a pass in their horrible predictions.

I hate all the bullshit that went on and as an anti-Trumper, I wanted the fear of god that Hillary might lose to turn out people. The poles for the most part were correct. The pundits messed it up.

The problem with trying to separate the data from the analysis is that when we criticize the polls we are talking about both how they're conducted and how they're interpreted.

And really it's a piss-poor attempt at splitting hairs. The pundits were wrong using the same data being used here. When the data is presented, it's never presented as, "We asked 1,000 random people (THIS EXACT QUESTION) and their responses were thus: ..." It's always presented as, "American opinion is this."

Funny how you don't have a problem labeling your chosen interpretations as fact when they're right and as opinion when they're wrong.

[THE Bigzoman]

TLDR: "Fuck The Polls!"

Don't polls only show probabilities? Just because the outcome slated to be unlikely by the polls occurred doesn't mean the polls were wrong. It could just mean the unlikely outcome occurred.

The polls being wrong was only funny because other people took them and said "A Clinton Victory will happen".

[Draco-Onis]

TLDR: "Fuck The Polls!"

Don't polls only show probabilities? Just because the outcome slated to be unlikely by the polls occurred doesn't mean the polls were wrong. It could just mean the unlikely outcome occurred.

The polls being wrong was only funny because other people took them and said "A Clinton Victory will happen".

For reasons unknown to me some people can't seem to be able to grasp the concept of percentages.

[Thepersona]

TLDR: "Fuck The Polls!"

Don't polls only show probabilities? Just because the outcome slated to be unlikely by the polls occurred doesn't mean the polls were wrong. It could just mean the unlikely outcome occurred.

The polls being wrong was only funny because other people took them and said "A Clinton Victory will happen".

not exactly. polls show an opinion of a sample. when extrapolated, and if done correctly, it then shows a most probable scenario (95% confidence interval, 3% margin of error on most cases) on what the population will do.
but yeah, really some people here are illiterate on statistics, and as such, try to gloss them over.

[Daerio]

TLDR: "Fuck The Polls!"

Don't polls only show probabilities? Just because the outcome slated to be unlikely by the polls occurred doesn't mean the polls were wrong. It could just mean the unlikely outcome occurred.

The polls being wrong was only funny because other people took them and said "A Clinton Victory will happen".

Then using that rationalization and bringing to back to topic, I think it's unlikely that most Americans don't support deportation, especially of criminals. It's unfortunate that the Democrats have chosen such a pathetic platform to stand on with open boarders; it's not a winning strategy despite apparent popular opinion that it will win at some point in the indetermined future.

[Dadwen]

I think the issue is that people are interpreting a poll to be wrong when it had a huge undecided percentage that ultimately went to Trump. Trump had huge momentum amongst undecided voters towards the end of the election cycle. Trump's gains at the end weren't Clinton's losses. They were just his gains from undecided voters.

either way I would hope we just don't go to making laws and policy off a some Polls like the OP wishes... I flat out don't trust them, the math may be sound but once you throw a human factor into it (not just the pollsters but the participants), it can go all to hell.

[MikeBogina]

yeah, it does. not knowing that is failing at basic statistics.

(that's how big the sample must be, with different margin of errors)

You must know the opinion of over 300 million people, to know if that were true or not. You don't so what you're saying is not fact until then. Sorry, that's not math works.


Knowing .003% of the countries opinion and thinking that comes even close to 100%...

[Thepersona]

either way I would hope we just don't go to making laws and policy off a some Polls like the OP wishes... I flat out don't trust them, the math may be sound but once you throw a human factor into it (not just the pollsters but the participants), it can go all to hell.

that's why you should see if the polls shows clear biases, how does the std. deviation works there and so on. polling and data gathering and analysis is harder than you think

You must know the opinion of over 300 million people, to know if that were true or not. You don't so what you're saying is not fact until then. Sorry, that's not math works.


Knowing .003% of the countries opinion and thinking that comes even close to 100%...

YOU dont know how math or stats works. and by the way, doing a poll with a sample of 1kk or more is infeasible, and really stupid, because with 1-2k you obtain the desired results. the thing that i presented to you is a formula to obtain samples. its like the formula of 2+2=4, its freaking proven to work. even then, some pollsters go past that magic number in order to reduce any bias

[Daerio]

either way I would hope we just don't go to making laws and policy off a some Polls like the OP wishes... I flat out don't trust them, the math may be sound but once you throw a human factor into it (not just the pollsters but the participants), it can go all to hell.

Yes, honestly. You guys keep trying to argue about the math, and the math is not the problem, it's the people and the methods involved.

[Paranoid Android]

Then using that rationalization and bringing to back to topic, I think it's unlikely that most Americans don't support deportation, especially of criminals. It's unfortunate that the Democrats have chosen such a pathetic platform to stand on with open boarders; it's not a winning strategy despite apparent popular opinion that it will win at some point in the indetermined future.

As president, Hillary will:

Introduce comprehensive immigration reform. Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office. It will treat every person with dignity, fix the family visa backlog, uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.

Not really. Trumpsters were just fed the narrative that if you are not being a complete nationalist on immigration. That the other side must want every person to enter illegally.

[Thepersona]

Yes, honestly. You guys keep trying to argue about the math, and the math is not the problem, it's the people and the methods involved.

the methods are good. the analysis (and that happens after the data gathering) is bad. and analysis is the hardest part. you got your pundits to blame for that

[Daerio]

As president, Hillary will:

Introduce comprehensive immigration reform. Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office. It will treat every person with dignity, fix the family visa backlog, uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.

Not really. Trumpsters were just fed the narrative that if you are not being a complete nationalist on immigration. That the other side must want every person to enter illegally.

Well, in speeches to Goldman Sachs, Clinton says her dream is open boarders, and the Democrats have felt the most appropriate form of immigration reform is to establish sanctuary cities where they allow criminals to escape threat of deportation. As a result, citizens in those cities are being killed by illegal immigrants who have been previously caught and released by authorities.

That's the Democratic plan in action, and it's a failure. Clinton's campaign promises this cycle don't mean jackshit.

[Kezotar]

I like cheap food.

And that's what's making food more expensive.
They don't tax. They don't pay shit. However, they still consume. And what happens? Well, the rest has to pay more.
And then you run around. I LIKE CHEAP. Yeah, no surprise you like cheap.

[Daerio]

the methods are good. the analysis (and that happens after the data gathering) is bad. and analysis is the hardest part. you got your pundits to blame for that

All this talk of pundits reminds me about what Alex Jones said about all the pundits getting replaced after this cycle in an attempt to buy back the credibility of the polls and the networks after they rallied around Clinton and still failed to get her elected.

All I can do is laugh at the absurdity of the mainstream this cycle.

[Thepersona]

All this talk of pundits reminds me about what Alex Jones said about all the pundits getting replaced after this cycle in an attempt to buy back the credibility of the polls and the networks after they rallied around Clinton and still failed to get her elected.

All I can do is laugh at the absurdity of the mainstream this cycle.

well, he is technically correct in that regard tho. polls were correct, but the analysis was terrible. the high % of undecided added a big variance on the polls that no one dared to mention (i dunno why)

[Dadwen]

Yes, honestly. You guys keep trying to argue about the math, and the math is not the problem, it's the people and the methods involved.

my post just before that one you quoted.

either way I would hope we just don't go to making laws and policy off a some Polls like the OP wishes... I flat out don't trust them, the math may be sound but once you throw a human factor into it (not just the pollsters but the participants), it can go all to hell.