At this point do you trust the political polls ANY POLLS?

[Adam Jensen]

Aggregate polls and polls from 538, yes. With a grain of salt, but yet. When you have a whole bunch of polls combined, it helps average out the bad polls and gives a clearer picture.

When it's a single poll, I have to be skeptical, especially when the source *cough*rasmussen*cough* is biased.

[Doctor Amadeus]

the sin of having a bias in favor of empirical evidence to change my mind on something....

- - - Updated - - -

"magic thinking" dude just admit you have no idea how polls work.

Empirical Evidence, the simple fact you hand wave what I already said, proves you don't really know what the fuck that means. This thread is about polling not scientific method, I am not suggesting Jimmy Kimmel is Scientific, but what I am saying is all the polling isn't either, and those that aren't certainly have a problem, bias being one of the issues, and lack of honesty from the subjects being the other.

You are asking me to PROVE that, like I am here to teach you how what I said works, because either you don't honestly know and if that is the fucking case you should maybe do your own research.

Or more than likely you don't really have an argument or anything to say, you want to engage in a canned interchange if ideology you collected somewhere and want to spew off as thought you know what you are talking about, when clearly by your behavior you don't

I don't need to site a source or show pie charts to prove that.

- - - Updated - - -

Aggregate polls and polls from 538, yes. With a grain of salt, but yet. When you have a whole bunch of polls combined, it helps average out the bad polls and gives a clearer picture.

When it's a single poll, I have to be skeptical, especially when the source *cough*rasmussen*cough* is biased.

At least you understand the question. Yes, I agree with this totally. Few years back I wasn't as uncertain as I am now, mostly because of understanding the process but also because I trusted the method.


538 is pretty good in that it cross references so it's far less likely to be reliable than bias, the problem is however, that as everything becomes more and more political especially lately, I am not so sure of even 538s sources, or their sources sources.

[Kaleredar]

Yep, I am well aware of how polling is conducted,

Not if you think that it's conducted by people going around randomly engaging people on the street for their opinions by shoving a microphone in their face.

and I am well aware of all the elements and room for bias there is. However you are more than welcome to explain how there is no way the Polls could be wrong or way off as they proven to be.

If depends on whom the polls and analysis are coming from and how they were conducted. Then YOU, yes YOU, have to analyze the data shown and see whether it's statistically meaningful.

I am not claiming there is any magic, I am saying that people when asked, will lie it's part of human need.

"magic?" What in the hell are you even talking about?

Need more examples how about The New Republic, or The New York times, they are institutions of trust as well, guess what, they both had reporters busted for flat out lying and exploiting a system for truth. Not Scientific enough for you

Which is why you need to actively engage in researching the veracity of the claims made. Is the data they're using relevant? Is it statistically significant? How does that data compare to other sets of data on the matter?

I know that sounds "hard," but... you know... use a bit of critical thinking.

How about news organizations like Sinclair who have been proven to bury reviews and reports they don't like for political reasons.

Yeah, so you know that they're not particularly trustworthy in that arena.

Polls may or may not be scientific, some more than others, but as long as humans are involved bias creeps in, and the examples I given are my argument.

So because some polls are influenced by bad polling practices, and you lack the ability to discern between good and bad polling practices, no statistical investigation is to be trusted?

Sounds like you have some bias there.

Right because you have a bias, you are involved with as much magic thinking as anyone else if not more.

I'd say a bias against believing anecdotal evidence from random internet people is a pretty good "bias" to have.

[cubby]

Depends on who is doing the polling. Some, are biased for certain. Oversampling of one political side is not unheard of. But we should know from 2016, they can be far off in some cases. But one can get a general overall feeling of the political trends from them. But are they above 90%+ accurate? Not even close to that good.

Brings up the recent event in the Alabama Republican Senate primary, where the winner was favored to win by 6 points and he won by 31.

I love that you Trumpsters still post that conspiracy nonsense that the polls were "far off". Cracks me up every time - and lets us all know where you stand on math and science.

[Thee ANCOM]

Empirical Evidence, the simple fact you hand wave what I already said, proves you don't really know what the fuck that means. This thread is about polling not scientific method, I am not suggesting Jimmy Kimmel is Scientific, but what I am saying is all the polling isn't either, and those that aren't certainly have a problem, bias being one of the issues, and lack of honesty from the subjects being the other.

You are asking me to PROVE that, like I am here to teach you how what I said works, because either you don't honestly know and if that is the fucking case you should maybe do your own research.

Or more than likely you don't really have an argument or anything to say, you want to engage in a canned interchange if ideology you collected somewhere and want to spew off as thought you know what you are talking about, when clearly by your behavior you don't

I don't need to site a source or show pie charts to prove that.

- - - Updated - - -



At least you understand the question. Yes, I agree with this totally. Few years back I wasn't as uncertain as I am now, mostly because of understanding the process but also because I trusted the method.


538 is pretty good in that it cross references so it's far less likely to be reliable than bias, the problem is however, that as everything becomes more and more political especially lately, I am not so sure of even 538s sources, or their sources sources.

becasue you've presented nothing! holy fuck I'll accept one source, one bit of work that isnt you ranting about street magicians and Jimmy Kimmel.

[Ghostpanther]

Yeah, suggesting some people have bias, even if it's not intentional or their faith in data could be wrong disturbs a lot of apple carts, and honestly I think has a lot to do with why we live in a time where people who believe in shit like Demon Seeds being an actual think afflicting humanity, have weight.

But no no, lets get upset, at those pointing out those shitty at science, are more responsible than con artist, who use pseudoscience for such nonsense, as bleach curing corona virus.

I have lately just been hanging up when I get a caller who wants to ask me political questions. I show my feelings at the voting stations. I do think absolutely there are a lot of people like myself, who will not tell a pollster who they will vote for in the present political atmosphere. And some will outright lie. Or they say they favor such and such, yet when it comes to actually voting? They never do.

[Thee ANCOM]

or just get mad at everyone who doesn't suck up to you and agree with you? like what the fuck kind of discussion do you even want?

[Stormspark]

I love that you Trumpsters still post that conspiracy nonsense that the polls were "far off". Cracks me up every time - and lets us all know where you stand on math and science.

The polls were pretty close honestly. But polls can't take into account when Russia breaks into voting machines and changes the results in a few select states.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Not if you think that it's conducted by people going around randomly engaging people on the street for their opinions by shoving a microphone in their face.

And I am saying it isn't always.

If depends on whom the polls and analysis are coming from and how they were conducted. Then YOU, yes YOU, have to analyze the data shown and see whether it's statistically meaningful.

Yes, and some of the polls and those people taking them along with their sources are suspect

"magic?" What in the hell are you even talking about?

People lie, that isn't always magic and people as I said often answer with responses more closely to what they think is expected, rather than one that is honest.

Again Marketing Research, Entertainment such as Hypnotist, etc evidence

Which is why you need to actively engage in researching the veracity of the claims made. Is the data they're using relevant? Is it statistically significant? How does that data compare to other sets of data on the matter?

No I actually don't in fact if a certain source is known for lying and displaying bias along with dishonesty, I don't need more evidence to be suspicious

I know that sounds "hard," but... you know... use a bit of critical thinking.

Nothing critical or thinking about what you have shared.

Yeah, so you know that they're not particularly trustworthy in that arena.

The point is I don't know but as pointed out with Sinclair, it's worth of questioning the trustworthiness thus the question here about polling.

So because some polls are influenced by bad polling practices, and you lack the ability to discern between good and bad polling practices, no statistical investigation is to be trusted?

Not at all, but question is being asked of everyone. Me Personally I do question sources that go into an over all pool of averages, yes.

Sounds like you have some bias there.

No sounds like you're projecting and trying to come off smart for clever.

I'd say a bias against believing anecdotal evidence from random internet people is a pretty good "bias" to have.

I think you are projecting as I said, and protecting the apple cart because right now you are ever as much babbling about faith right now as anything science.

[Kaleredar]

becasue you've presented nothing! holy fuck I'll accept one source, one bit of work that isnt you ranting about street magicians and Jimmy Kimmel.

But you see, sources can't be trusted!

Their evidence is that they lack evidence!

[Doctor Amadeus]

becasue you've presented nothing! holy fuck I'll accept one source, one bit of work that isnt you ranting about street magicians and Jimmy Kimmel.

It isn't a ran, this isn't fucking scientific poll either, it's just a question, and your pedantic nonsense isn't changing that fact.

- - - Updated - - -

I have lately just been hanging up when I get a caller who wants to ask me political questions. I show my feelings at the voting stations. I do think absolutely there are a lot of people like myself, who will not tell a pollster who they will vote for in the present political atmosphere. And some will outright lie. Or they say they favor such and such, yet when it comes to actually voting? They never do.

Honestly I don't get those calls, I also know plenty of people say often they never get those calls either so who are they calling. Personally I don't want or need to calls either, I understand how and why people get them.

However I do believe people can let Polls get inside their head one way or another. Which is why I was curious where people might be about polls over all, thus the thread.

[Kaleredar]

People lie, that isn't always magic and people as I said often answer with responses more closely to what they think is expected, rather than one that is honest.

Okay, so do you have evidence of this happening in real life in a statistically sound poll?

Again Marketing Research, Entertainment such as Hypnotist, etc evidence

That's not "evidence," that's just you listing off words.

No I actually don't in fact if a certain source is known for lying and displaying bias along with dishonesty, I don't need more evidence to be suspicious



Nothing critical or thinking about what you have shared.

If you refuse to investigate the veracity of claims, how do you know when you're being lied to? You're just arbitrarily trusting and mistrusting things on a whim or even worse, because someone else told you not to trust them.

The point is I don't know but as pointed out with Sinclair, it's worth of questioning the trustworthiness thus the question here about polling.

See but you're not questioning, not really. The second part of "questioning" is "answering," and you're doing nothing in that regard.

Hell, you don't even know why you're believing or not believing something, other than that someone else told you to do so. Someone says this source is untrustworthy, so you don't trust that source. Someone says this source is trustworthy, you trust that source.

You're refusing to take any impetus upon yourself.

Not at all, but question is being asked of everyone. Me Personally I do question sources that go into an over all pool of averages, yes.

...So you're saying "I trust polls, except when I don't, and that's based largely on whether I've been told they're trustworthy or not."

No sounds like you're projecting and trying to come off smart for clever.

This thread is just you projecting.

[Thee ANCOM]

It isn't a ran, this isn't fucking scientific poll either, it's just a question, and your pedantic nonsense isn't changing that fact.

I gave you my answer, and you told me it was wrong, becasue David Blaine. it's nonsense dude, utter nonsense.

[Doctor Amadeus]

But you see, sources can't be trusted!

Their evidence is that they lack evidence!

No Sometimes sources can be trusted, because people often have biases, and there are often variables not accounted for when considering certain results. I would say polls might have been more reliable say 20 to 30 years ago, mostly because it was a different time then, people were different, our culture was different.


You didn't have the kind of society that would vote "Hitler did nothing Wrong" as a Mountain Dew flavor. You can hand wave that shit all you want, but that too is a cultural reality.

[cubby]

The polls were pretty close honestly. But polls can't take into account when Russia breaks into voting machines and changes the results in a few select states.

Exactly - the polls were within their margin of error, just prior to the election. The Trumpkins "remember" the polls saying Hillary was several points ahead, but they forget that those leads were early on, and polls showed the margin closing as election day neared.

Did they find evidence of that hacking occurring. I know they said interference happened, but I can't recall to what level.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I gave you my answer, and you told me it was wrong, becasue David Blaine. it's nonsense dude, utter nonsense.

Well you were talking about how Jimmy Kimmel was way different than any polling, I said not really. I didn't say you were wrong. Some of these marketing firms and people spend a lot of time and money taking themselves and their profession seriously, I am not suggesting ALL of them cook the books or it some conspiracy.

That is where the fuck YOU were going because, I BOTHERED to introduce a poll and ask the question about trust.

So maybe calm the fuck down, and relax. The thread isn't a fucking a diss on science, or a claim any kind of polling is all the same.


The question simply is about trust and our state of affairs when it comes to things, LIKE POLLING, because while YOU dismiss it, editing or NO, plenty of people are exactly like those making shit on Camera for the Jimmy Kimmel show.

My point also wasn't to demonize them or call them out per say, just that I believe the Polls aren't as trust worthy based on the reasons I gave.

You want to accept that fine, you don't I don't give a shit either. The thread is just asking everyone in general, because I felt it's an interesting question.

[Kaleredar]

No Sometimes sources can be trusted, because people often have biases, and there are often variables not accounted for when considering certain results. I would say polls might have been more reliable say 20 to 30 years ago, mostly because it was a different time then, people were different, our culture was different.


You didn't have the kind of society that would vote "Hitler did nothing Wrong" as a Mountain Dew flavor. You can hand wave that shit all you want, but that too is a cultural reality.

You've spoken entirely in vague generalities. "Sometimes sources can't be trusted." "People often have biases." "Often variables not accounted for." "Certain results." That kind of wording is known as a Proof surrogate, a logical fallacy.

How often can sources not be trusted? What biases? What variables? How often? Which results?

What hard, concrete facts based in numbers are you forming your opinions on? Where are the sources and certainties to back up your positions?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Exactly - the polls were within their margin of error, just prior to the election. The Trumpkins "remember" the polls saying Hillary was several points ahead, but they forget that those leads were early on, and polls showed the margin closing as election day neared.

Did they find evidence of that hacking occurring. I know they said interference happened, but I can't recall to what level.

Hopefully regardless to polls, I hope people get off their asses and vote, and don't get comfortable. Because I would love nothing more than for polls to be right.

- - - Updated - - -

You've spoken entirely in vague generalities. "Sometimes sources can't be trusted." "People often have biases." "Often variables not accounted for." "Certain results." That kind of wording is known as a Proof surrogate, a logical fallacy.

I can do that, I am a grown up and not a robot, so I can think for my self and make decisions based on my authority, not yours ow someone else supposed. You can save your regurgitate script shit, about logical fallacy and what not in lieu of actually speaking like a real human being or someone of any authenticity.

How often can sources not be trusted? What biases? What variables? How often? Which results?

This is you thinking out loud, maybe confine this shit to yourself and maybe less projecting of others.

What hard, concrete facts based in numbers are you forming your opinions on? Where are the sources and certainties to back up your positions?

I don't know the same place you got your copy pasta and instant win arguments for conversations either out of context or completely inappropriate because maybe you fail to critically think for yourself out of some other fear you have. Either way it would be nice if you could stick to the fucking thread, not project and maybe worry less about what I or anyone else should be doing and either speak for yourself.

Or if you have nothing to contribute don't

[Thee ANCOM]

Well you were talking about how Jimmy Kimmel was way different than any polling, I said not really.

because that's a true statement, saying "not really" is the same as saying I'm wrong.

you framed it as being the same as being duped by a street magician in some act as opposed to asking somone in private about things they hold privately. WHICH IS HOW POLLING IS DONE.

I'm not mad becasue you said I'm wrong, I'm mad becasue of why you said I'm wrong. it's insulting to my intelligence.

[JohnBrown1917]

Exit polls in the Netherlands are ussually between 1 and 2 seats of the outcome, not really seeing a problem with them.