knapplc Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 No, it didn't explain it. The site claimed it, but looking through the data, I see nothing that supports that. Can you show me where that is? 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 No, it didn't explain it. The site claimed it, but looking through the data, I see nothing that supports that. Can you show me where that is? +1. Claiming isn't enough. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Recall that according to polls, Carter over Reagan was a "sure thing" right up until the last few weeks. With all due respect, Mr. Comish, Romney is no Reagan. 1 Link to comment
Comish Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Recall that according to polls, Carter over Reagan was a "sure thing" right up until the last few weeks. With all due respect, Mr. Comish, Romney is no Reagan. The example was an indictment of the polls, not the particular politicians. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Recall that according to polls, Carter over Reagan was a "sure thing" right up until the last few weeks. With all due respect, Mr. Comish, Romney is no Reagan. The example was an indictment of the polls, not the particular politicians. Yeah . . . I just wanted to badly paraphrase. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 The example was an indictment of the polls, not the particular politicians. I'm down with that. Polls are not proof. The proof comes during the election (or during the chad analysis, if you're George Bush II). Link to comment
Comish Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 No, it didn't explain it. The site claimed it, but looking through the data, I see nothing that supports that. Can you show me where that is? Well, the data is presented numerically. They surveyed x amount of people, under-polled based on demographics and applied the numbers. How you get "claiming" out of that is mysterious. Now, you may not wish to give credence to the data because it doesn't fit the "claims" of Gallup or others sympathetic to your side, but there it is. By the way, recalling the old saying about there are only two things absolutely CERTAIN in life being death and taxes. I am now adding a 3rd, and that is the certainty that everytime Knappic posts something, "Me Too" (aka Carlfense) with be immediately onboard right behind with his predictable and ever-present +1. (actually kind of embarrassing). Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Comish, I'm telling you that I looked at the numbers, and they're not broken down the way that website says they're broken down. Look at the PDF. It does not show what your website claims it shows. Simple, easy, honest question - did you read the PDF, or just the website you posted? If you did read the PDF, please point out which page shows what you're saying. Here's a problem with this website: Based on their analysis, 822 registered voters were polled. But right on the PDF, the second paragraph, it says they polled 875 registered voters. Um.... huge red flag there, right? You clearly haven't even read the PDF. Be better than that. EDIT - for fun, I went through this thread and +1'd every one of Carlfense's posts. So there. 1 Link to comment
Comish Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Comish, I'm telling you that I looked at the numbers, and they're not broken down the way that website says they're broken down. Look at the PDF. It does not show what your website claims it shows. Simple, easy, honest question - did you read the PDF, or just the website you posted? If you did read the PDF, please point out which page shows what you're saying. Here's a problem with this website: Based on their analysis, 822 registered voters were polled. But right on the PDF, the second paragraph, it says they polled 875 registered voters. Um.... huge red flag there, right? You clearly haven't even read the PDF. Be better than that. EDIT - for fun, I went through this thread and +1'd every one of Carlfense's posts. So there. I just read the website. If the PDF is different, I'll give you that. The one point that can't be addressed, though is why certain groups are over sampled or under sampled, but we had this discussion several months ago and came to no consensus, so I won't broach it again here. Still can't figure out the rationale unless to deliberately skew the results. Good for you for + 1ing "Me Too"'s posts (just having some fun with you Carl). Everyone would like a faithful kemosabe to shore him up on everything. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 EDIT - for fun, I went through this thread and +1'd every one of Carlfense's posts. So there. I don't need your @$%#$ pity +1s. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I don't even want to vote. Vote for a third party candidate, register your disgust for the two corporate choices. Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 The only way that could possibly be skewed is if they intentionally called people they knew were Democrat and Republican, and ignored Independents. That's not how Gallup works, last time I checked. Also, isn't this the same Gallup that the DOJ is suing because they're producing skewed results that are damaging to Obama. Coulda swore that's what I heard.... Link to comment
Comish Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 EDIT - for fun, I went through this thread and +1'd every one of Carlfense's posts. So there. I don't need your @$%#$ pity +1s. Link to comment
Comish Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 The only way that could possibly be skewed is if they intentionally called people they knew were Democrat and Republican, and ignored Independents. That's not how Gallup works, last time I checked. Also, isn't this the same Gallup that the DOJ is suing because they're producing skewed results that are damaging to Obama. Coulda swore that's what I heard.... And then miraculously changed the results immediately to favor BO (after a threatening call from Axelrod)...............Coulda swore that's what I heard.... Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 The only way that could possibly be skewed is if they intentionally called people they knew were Democrat and Republican, and ignored Independents. That's not how Gallup works, last time I checked. Also, isn't this the same Gallup that the DOJ is suing because they're producing skewed results that are damaging to Obama. Coulda swore that's what I heard.... And then miraculously changed the results immediately to favor BO (after a threatening call from Axelrod)...............Coulda swore that's what I heard.... It's a nice fiction, isn't it? Especially when dozens of other polls report much the same as the Gallup polls. But no, the real story, as told to us by our conservative blogger friends, is true - that Gallup's polling data (and Gallup's alone, apparently), is being skewed. Every other polling place that shows Obama in the lead.... those we just ignore. It's the polls by the company named in a DOJ lawsuit that are being coercively changed. Link to comment
Recommended Posts