What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

If you like polls, polls on white nationalism (1 Viewer)

Stealthycat said:
then Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election

everyone had her penciled in, she was up double digits in many polls

they were wrong

If I wanted a 65-70% of the people don't mind confederate statues poll results, I'd do that poll in an area largely southern and in a city that has statues and parks of the Confederacy. I'd get my poll results one way or the other. 

If i wanted them to be AGAINST the statues, I'd do that poll in a very liberal black neighborhood in California .... I'd get my poll results one way or the other. 

I'd also word the polls differently, to get the results I wanted. 
Click to expand...
Hey, we're making progress!  You're actually stumbling upon legitimate criticisms of some polls.

I obliquely mentioned that the 2016 presidential polls were not as inaccurate as people think.  Most polls had her winning the popular election by about 3%.  She won by 2%.  Well within the respective margins of error.  But horse race national election polls have one big problem.  They aren't measuring the right thing.  Because winning the popular vote doesn't make you president.

So we look to the state polling.  Even though Trump pretty much swept the toss-up states and Hillary was "ahead" in the latest polls in many of those states, almost all of those polls were well within the margin of error as well.  Because Hillary didn't have big leads in those polls and Trump won those states by a whisker (Wisconsin is an exception, but we didn't have that recent a poll from before the election). 

Your later discussion highlights the legitimate problems with some polls that we're already talking about.  If you pulled 65% of your respondents from the South, you wouldn't have a representative sample.  You could have polled 2 million people and that poll would be worse than one that polled 1,000 people but which was representative. 

 
Stealthycat said:
in today's world, its harder to trust any polls .... CNN has an agenda, FOX has an agenda, TheBlaze does ... most do with few exceptions. General Statistics have value, but the game is changing on how polls as conducted and how accurate the results are. 

again - ya'll can't prove poll's are accurate, I cannot prove they are not ........... I'm a skeptic by nature 
Click to expand...
We can prove the accuracy of some polls.  Elections have results and polls tell us exactly how accurate they're supposed to be (that's what confidence levels and confidence intervals DO).  It's true that we can't tell you whether any one result that falls outside of a poll's margin of error is the result of an improperly designed poll or just an outlier result that the poll's confidence level accounts for.  But we can look at patterns of polling companies and see if generally they hit within their confidence interval. 

 
Stealthycat said:
then Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election

everyone had her penciled in, she was up double digits in many polls

they were wrong

If I wanted a 65-70% of the people don't mind confederate statues poll results, I'd do that poll in an area largely southern and in a city that has statues and parks of the Confederacy. I'd get my poll results one way or the other. 

If i wanted them to be AGAINST the statues, I'd do that poll in a very liberal black neighborhood in California .... I'd get my poll results one way or the other. 

I'd also word the polls differently, to get the results I wanted. 
Click to expand...
Final popular vote poll, I believe, had her +3 with margin of error of 3.5 (Bloomberg)

She won the popular vote by 3 million of 129 million.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies said:
If you're debating HF, MT, and RHE it is the expected result.
Click to expand...
Generally, if you're debating them, and you're not being paid to do so or they aren't being paid to do so, you should merely concede your position or, at the very least, seriously re-evaluate what it is you're arguing.  

 
Zow said:
Generally, if you're debating them, and you're not being paid to do so or they aren't being paid to do so, you should merely concede your position or, at the very least, seriously re-evaluate what it is you're arguing.  
Click to expand...
It's not often we all agree with each other.  Well, it's not often that we all agree with each other but don't feel the need to argue some minuscule point to differentiate ourselves from one another.

 
Henry Ford said:
It's not often we all agree with each other.  Well, it's not often that we all agree with each other but don't feel the need to argue some minuscule point to differentiate ourselves from one another.
Click to expand...
Right.  So when you do all three agree...

 
Sampling methodology is the process of selecting a proper population sample, which includes both the sample size and the sample composition. Both sample size and sample composition were addressed above, sample size with the sample size calculator and sample composition with the discussion on pulling the sample representative to the population on its demographic attributes. The example given above was the discussion about skewing the sample by pulling 60% from the south. Sample composition is absolutely critical to sampling methodology, that's what allows the power of statistics to do their thing.

Survey methodology is how to collect the survey responses from the selected sample. An online survey itself may be a perfectly sufficient methodology, so long as the selected sample are invited to participate in the online survey properly. If someone just puts a survey online on a website somewhere and allows self selected responses, the survey results are going to overstate the responses of the population that are exposed to the survey. So it's not simple enough to condemn the online survey methodology, it is fine to use online surveys to collect responses if you reach the selected sample properly.

In a previous generation of market research, landline telephone surveys were considered the best practice survey methodology for collecting consmer surveys, because 95% plus of households had landline phones. Random Digit Dialing Sampling by zip code with population demographic weighting were top techniques for ensuring representative sampling and therefore representative survey results. Now with diminishing landline ownership and declining participation rates by telephone, I think it makes sense to collect responses from the selected sample frame however you can, so long as you keep the sample methodology pure on sample composition.

So a perfectly pulled sample on the population composition is what allows for a sample size of a couple thousand to represent the entire US population with a 99% confidence level and a 2 to 3% confidence interval. If you can live with a 95% confidence level, that sample size can be as low as 400-500 completed surveys.

 
timschochet said:
This thread reminds of that Golddigger guy who used to attack evolution. He'd get into these arguments with Shining Path (RIP) and a few others, and get completely demolished, but keep coming back for more.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking today about how young-earth creationism doesn't seem to be a thing anymore. I don't think anyone on this forum has argued against evolution in years. I wonder why not?

The evidence hasn't changed much in the past few decades, but nobody was a creationist based on evidence anyway.

Denying evolution has in some sense been replaced by denying climate science, but it doesn't seem the same. There used to be people like golddigger who put a lot of effort into denying evolution. They'd read creationist websites and parrot misinformation about the minutiae of cell metabolism and whatnot, even borrowing arcane jargon from chemical engineering.

I don't really see people doing anything similar with climate change. The skeptics on message boards don't bother misrepresenting the finer points of radiatively active gases' emission bands -- they mostly just post laughing emojis. It's like they're just going through the motions; their hearts really aren't in it.

What seems to have replaced hardcore enthusiasm for goofy pseudoscientific views these days is hardcore enthusiasm for goofy political views. Plenty of people put real effort into knowing the details of secret codes used in Podesta's emails, or the connection between pizza and pedophilia, or the Deep State's conspiracy to frame Trump for colluding with Russia, and so on. Now these people are enthusiastic about their beliefs! At least as enthusiastic as the creationists used to be, and as impervious to evidence.

Humans are really quirky and weird. No wonder there are so many movies about them. They are fascinating in so many ways.

 
“If you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but…you’re forming a white family [and] reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ - how is that helping [and] not part of the problem?”
Click to expand...
Because I'm raising my children to embrace diversity and not be racist?

edit: it's kind of racist of the professor to assume that I won't raise my children to fight white supremacy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good to see the liberal NYT normalizing white supremacy.  They are getting a ton of blow back and the writer of the story even admits he really didn't get that much out of his reporting, but they ran it anyway.

Story: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nationalist.html?

Author's reflection:  https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/insider/white-nationalist-interview-questions.html

After I had filed an early version of the article, an editor at The Times told me he felt like the question had not been sufficiently addressed. So I went back to Mr. Hovater in search of answers. I still don’t think I really found them. I could feel the failure even as Mr. Hovater and I spoke on the phone, adding to what had already been hours of face-to-face conversation in and around his hometown New Carlisle, Ohio.

Other perspectives:

https://shareblue.com/you-end-up-glorifying-nazis-shareblue-writer-nails-the-new-york-times/ 

Rather, it’s just the latest example to emerge from what is now a cottage industry of sympathetic profiles that started by normalizing Trump, then Trump voters, and now, members of hate groups.

“For the last 12 months, the D.C. press, led by The New York Times, has been obsessed with humanizing, celebrating, normalizing Trump voters,” Boehlert said. “They’ve gotten so far to the right now they’re trying to normalize Nazis.”

Boehlert continued, pointing out that the Times’ coverage of Trump voters stands in stark contrast to their coverage of Obama voters — which essentially didn’t exist.

“You know how many times in 2009 The New York Times went to Baltimore, Chicago, L.A., and interviewed Obama supporters and said, ‘How great is Obama?’ They never did it because it wasn’t news,” he said, adding:

“Why is this news? We’ve been doing this for a year. Drop it, because you end up glorifying Nazis.”

 
AAABatteries said:
Assuming that’s really what she said I’m not sure why we would listen to her - she’s a lunatic.
Click to expand...
The rest of her twitter rant was pretty good too.  If you're a white home owner and you die and leave your house to your white children you're enabling white privilege and social inequality.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I was just thinking today about how young-earth creationism doesn't seem to be a thing anymore. I don't think anyone on this forum has argued against evolution in years. I wonder why not?

The evidence hasn't changed much in the past few decades, but nobody was a creationist based on evidence anyway.

Denying evolution has in some sense been replaced by denying climate science, but it doesn't seem the same. There used to be people like golddigger who put a lot of effort into denying evolution. They'd read creationist websites and parrot misinformation about the minutiae of cell metabolism and whatnot, even borrowing arcane jargon from chemical engineering.

I don't really see people doing anything similar with climate change. The skeptics on message boards don't bother misrepresenting the finer points of radiatively active gases' emission bands -- they mostly just post laughing emojis. It's like they're just going through the motions; their hearts really aren't in it.

What seems to have replaced hardcore enthusiasm for goofy pseudoscientific views these days is hardcore enthusiasm for goofy political views. Plenty of people put real effort into knowing the details of secret codes used in Podesta's emails, or the connection between pizza and pedophilia, or the Deep State's conspiracy to frame Trump for colluding with Russia, and so on. Now these people are enthusiastic about their beliefs! At least as enthusiastic as the creationists used to be, and as impervious to evidence.

Humans are really quirky and weird. No wonder there are so many movies about them. They are fascinating in so many ways.
Click to expand...
I never "borrowing arcane jargon from chemical engineering."  Chemical Engineering has little to say about evolution.  Chemical Engineering is mostly about physical chemistry (kinetics, fluid dynamics, transport phenomena, thermodynamics...).  Biochemistry is not a required course in ChE.   Chemical Engineering came up because Pickles stated he was ChE.  I told him I was one as well. 

I posted this video  stating that this was required life requires a metabolism.  ATP synthase is like a motor with moving parts, gears ...  How does evolution account for this structure? Is there an evolutionary biological pathway  for this?  NO  

What is "radiatively active gases' emission bands" and how does it relate to climate change?

 
@Joe Bryant sorry for the ping but this is the 2nd new account I’ve seen pop up with some random quote of an old post with some jargon that doesn’t make sense. Last one in Qanon thread. Just seems fishy and wanted to point it out. 
 

eta, I see that it’s a really old account, must have just been in jail or some sort of 12 year time out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson said:
@Joe Bryant sorry for the ping but this is the 2nd new account I’ve seen pop up with some random quote of an old post with some jargon that doesn’t make sense. Last one in Qanon thread. Just seems fishy and wanted to point it out. 
 

eta, I see that it’s a really old account, must have just been in jail or some sort of 12 year time out.
Click to expand...
Wow.

 
Obviously it's a pretty delayed reply, but that poster is an alias of the one to whom Maurile referred in his post.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Do You Believe College Liberals Have Hijacked The Democratic Party? (5/19/22 7:43 PST)
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
883
jon_mx
J
HellToupee
Greenwald: The Pressure Campaign on Spotify to Remove Joe Rogan Reveals the Religion of Liberals: Censorship
2 3
Replies
103
Views
3K
AAABatteries
AAABatteries

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top