https://www.pewforum.org/2015/08/26/...orthodox-jews/
No, he's not. You're just strictly talking about orthodox jews who make up just about 10% of all jews in the US.
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/08/26/...orthodox-jews/
No, he's not. You're just strictly talking about orthodox jews who make up just about 10% of all jews in the US.
This is generally worth covering a bit.
The two polling aggregator/analyst groups that I'd regard as the most credible, competent, and serious are Fivethirtyeight and New York Times TheUpshot. Fivethirtyeight had the election as being a 71% chance of a Clinton victory, repeatedly wrote about the chance of a popular vote win and electoral loss for Clinton, and finalized the odds of that as being ~10%. Any reasonable person looking at their outcome would say that they did a pretty good job and appropriately cautioned that a Trump win wasn't just an edge case, but a very real possibility. The UpShot had a bit rosier picture for Clinton, giving her an 85% chance of winning. That's probably more like a miss, but still, 15% chance events can and do happen all the time, so it's not like they were just plainly wrong.
After the election, I lost no trust in either group - their data and analysis is highly informative.
Trending worse, Reuters-Ipsos had it at 90%. Again, 10% events do happen, but it's not a great look if you miss that multiple times. I'll wait and see before having a negative opinion - I think they're still an excellent polling agency, but maybe their analytics aren't great. Maybe they're doing better after some lessons learned, they're probably still worth paying attention to.
Out on the far end, HuffPo pegged it as 98.2% Clinton. OK, we all know HuffPo is partisan, but they were at least pretending to have a real model that would actually be predictive. In the aftermath of having a model that only gave Trump a 1.8% chance, we could pretty well put the nail in any notion that they're trying to do a good job modeling anything.
Finally, Sam Wang with Princeton Consortium used a Bayesian model and came up with 99%. I think we can safely conclude that Wang badly miscalibrated his model. I don't know anything else about him, but I do plan to ignore him going forward.
Yep. The polls in 2016 where off by several different sources. And in some cases, by a lot. Ohio for example, had Hillary up by 1 - 2 points before the election. Trump won the state by 8% points. The second most nationally accurate polling source in 2016, was the liberal's hated Rasmussen. The top one was none of the more common sources. Some business type one that I forget the name of. It can be found with a quick google for those interested enough.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
Democratic Socialist Convention : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLQNUVmq3o
Do they also have some unknown technic to grow them faster or how does this matter with regards to Trump's support?
- - - Updated - - -
Funny you mention that. You don't seem to have any problem with the different birthrates in secular American Jews and Israel Jews and how the Orthodox ones seem to disregard social services that facilitate higher birthrates in Israel. Talk about voting against one's interests.
He is not though and the numbers agree with him. Of course, your only argument as always is some wishful thinking about some religious change based on scripture, if the facts don't support your argument, resort to belief.
Oh, I am sorry that I actually have arguments and not just "but the bible says, and I have faith in that".
What does voting against your interests matter? Is this really your question?
So the stuff you brought up about how the Israeli government is supporting family and that's part of the reason for higher birthrates was just bullshit? Ha, that didn't take long.
They aren't shrinking, do you have trouble reading numbers?
Uff, that's not a good sign but you seem to be cheering this on, so yeah, I guess.
Connal, This is a lie. Birthrate is falling all across the board, in all countries, mostly because the change of the times: https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-new-nor...ross-the-globe
And religiosity is also falling all across the board. Understand this, Internet exists worldwide, and it did not 30 years ago. Contraception is used even in religious families (i know because i've seen it) and i've not seen a lot of people (5 at most) in my age group wanting to have more than 2 childs in their lifetime. As education increases (and it's doing so, there're more college educated students per capita than ever before, in all countries, you cant deny that), religiosity and birthrate decreases. And even then, a good % of the religious people's offspring will grow to be Atheists or Non-religious (again, because internet exists). Your wishful thinking and dreams of the resurgence of religiosity will not come to pass. Understand this crap again... THE GOOD OLD TIMES WILL NOT COME BACK!
- - - Updated - - -
And also this. Religiosity is not ingrained in genetics.
Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker
Connal is like a post-wall slut - desperate for anything meaningful. I guess that's what happens to failed transhumanists.
After impeachment we get to see the real side show trail that the jury has already admitted they have made up there minds and are in conclusion with the defense. So we get to see all the Republicans screaming this is all about politics use it to be nothing but politics.