“Mother of All Caravans” Heading To Mexico

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

There was no great magic in 2018. No special use of statistics. It played out almost exactly the way the polling data showed and stayed largely within the margins of error. I predicted exactly what happened as well, but certainly don't tout any special use of statistics.

House to Dems by no record setting margin. Senate remains fairly static with some Republican gains.

2016 was also within the margin of error for most of the polls out there too, just went to the underdog by the couple points. It was entirely pundits that predicted Clinton's massive win, not so much the pollsters. And the pundits got left with egg on their faces.

But to the question of polling questions, there is an art to the writing of questions and then advertising the answers. While you choose a very straightforward one as an example, a better one is.

Question : Do you support universal healthcare?
Answer : Yes - 70% plus now support it.

Question : Do you support universal healthcare if it means giving up your current plan and paying a larger share?
Answer : No - Only 13% or so support that.

Easy to play games with polls just by questions alone. And in the political world it also easy to manipulate samples as not really being random.

I agree with you. No magic involved. Yet the majority of people on this forum got it wrong in 2018. Emotion over reality I guess.

Yes, it is possible to play games with polls and lead the people being polled into certain responses. But the major polling firms depend on their reputation and doing so would not help. Most polling questions are very straight forward. The goal of most surveys is to get the correct results, not trick people.

And you are right when you say that statistics did not come into play in my predicting the results of the 2018 midterms. Logic did. But it was logic based on statistical polls and data.

You have to understand my "relationship" with LL. His primary goal on this forum is seemingly to try to embarrass me. Doesn't work but he still tries. Our history goes back a long way. Enough said.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by eccielover

There was no great magic in 2018. No special use of statistics. It played out almost exactly the way the polling data showed and stayed largely within the margins of error. I predicted exactly what happened as well, but certainly don't tout any special use of statistics.

House to Dems by no record setting margin. Senate remains fairly static with some Republican gains.

2016 was also within the margin of error for most of the polls out there too, just went to the underdog by the couple points. It was entirely pundits that predicted Clinton's massive win, not so much the pollsters. And the pundits got left with egg on their faces.



But to the question of polling questions, there is an art to the writing of questions and then advertising the answers. While you choose a very straightforward one as an example, a better one is.

Question : Do you support universal healthcare?
Answer : Yes - 70% plus now support it.

Question : Do you support universal healthcare if it means giving up your current plan and paying a larger share?
Answer : No - Only 13% or so support that.

Easy to play games with polls just by questions alone. And in the political world it also easy to manipulate samples as not really being random.

Any polling that involves Trump supporters is not going to be accurate. They are children of the Father of Lies

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I agree with you. No magic involved. Yet the majority of people on this forum got it wrong in 2018. Emotion over reality I guess.

Yes, it is possible to play games with polls and lead the people being polled into certain responses. But the major polling firms depend on their reputation and doing so would not help. Most polling questions are very straight forward. The goal of most surveys is to get the correct results, not trick people.

And you are right when you say that statistics did not come into play in my predicting the results of the 2018 midterms. Logic did. But it was logic based on statistical polls and data.

You have to understand my "relationship" with LL. His primary goal on this forum is seemingly to try to embarrass me. Doesn't work but he still tries. Our history goes back a long way. Enough said.

Agreed, many continue to project based on wishful thinking. And I agree logical assessment of the polls and data put 2018 where it landed as well as giving Hillary the edge in 2016. The media and the pundits screwed the pooch there, not the actual polling data, but it gives the rabid ones the chance to say that the polls were all wrong. That wasn't the problem.

2020 is shaping up largely the same. Too many pundits running with small percentage margins as the end all be all to the election. First too early, second too small of margins.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by themystic

Any polling that involves Trump supporters is not going to be accurate. They are children of the Father of Lies

YAWN. So nothing related to 2016 or 2018 polling which involved Trump was accurate, even though based on margin of error it was accurate.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by eccielover

YAWN. So nothing related to 2016 or 2018 polling which involved Trump was accurate, even though based on margin of error it was accurate.

Totally related. Trump
And his people can’t tell the truth. Especially when they are by themselves. They are scardy cats unless they are in a group. One on one they can’t be believed

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by themystic

Totally related. Trump
And his people can’t tell the truth. Especially when they are by themselves. They are scardy cats unless they are in a group. One on one they can’t be believed

So you think this skewed polling data in favor of the Dems for POTUS in 2016 who lost, or skewed data toward the projections that the Dems would take the House in 2018 which they did, or polling data that said Republicans would probably gain in the Senate in 2018 which they did?

I'm missing how polling data, that proved largely accurate, was skewed by Trump supporters. The Pundits screwed up, not the polling nor the polling results.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by eccielover

YAWN. So nothing related to 2016 or 2018 polling which involved Trump was accurate, even though based on margin of error it was accurate.

your bugs bunny image isn't loading for some reason.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I agree with you. No magic involved. Yet the majority of people on this forum got it wrong in 2018. Emotion over reality I guess.

Yes, it is possible to play games with polls and lead the people being polled into certain responses. But the major polling firms depend on their reputation and doing so would not help. Most polling questions are very straight forward. The goal of most surveys is to get the correct results, not trick people.

And you are right when you say that statistics did not come into play in my predicting the results of the 2018 midterms. Logic did. But it was logic based on statistical polls and data.

You have to understand my "relationship" with LL. His primary goal on this forum is seemingly to try to embarrass me. Doesn't work but he still tries. Our history goes back a long way. Enough said.

Your memory isn't serving you well. Some in here only predicted that the dim-retards would not take back the Senate in 2018 regardless of what the dim-retard pollsters were saying.

Originally Posted by themystic

Totally related. Trump
And his people can’t tell the truth. Especially when they are by themselves. They are scardy cats unless they are in a group. One on one they can’t be believed

If you want to see "scardy cats" look at the dim-retards in the Senate where they were too afraid to vote for Ocasio Cortez's environmental bill.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your memory isn't serving you well. Some in here only predicted that the dim-retards would not take back the Senate in 2018 regardless of what the dim-retard pollsters were saying.






If you want to see "scardy cats" look at the dim-retards in the Senate where they were too afraid to vote for Ocasio Cortez's environmental bill.

Thats not scardy cat. Thats smart. Not wearing your MAGA hat in public is scardy cat

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

Thats not scardy cat. Thats smart. Not wearing your MAGA hat in public is scardy cat

Dim-retard "scardy cats" one an all! Too afraid to go on public record as supporting Ocasio Cortez's jackass plan!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your memory isn't serving you well. Some in here only predicted that the dim-retards would not take back the Senate in 2018 regardless of what the dim-retard pollsters were saying.

I don't remember any pollsters stating that the Democrats would take back the Senate in 2018. Yes, several people, myself included, predicted that the Republicans would hold on to the Senate. The odds of Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2018 were slim based on the seats up for election.

But I don't remember anyone else predicting a solid Democratic House victory and a Republican Senate victory. Maybe eccielover.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't remember any pollsters stating that the Democrats would take back the Senate in 2018. Yes, several people, myself included, predicted that the Republicans would hold on to the Senate. The odds of Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2018 were slim based on the seats up for election.

But I don't remember anyone else predicting a solid Democratic House victory and a Republican Senate victory. Maybe eccielover.

As I said, your memory misserves you. I never speculated on the House, but I did say -- repeatedly -- that the dim-retards wouldn't take the Senate.

[straightshooter30]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You mean these folks? VVVVVV



are just "... coming up to our border and asking for asylum.."?

(She's not seeking asylum from Venezuela it seems based on the reports of "starvation"!!!!)

.. how about these ...



There has got to be a U.S. Consulate under one of those shrubs!

This scene... Looks like a scene from AMC's Walking Dead...

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As I said, your memory misserves you. I never speculated on the House, but I did say -- repeatedly -- that the dim-retards wouldn't take the Senate.

I am not about to go back and try to find out where everyone stood on election day, 2018. Most everyone who made a prediction predicted the Senate to remain Republican. What I keep saying is that no one other than myself and possibly eccielover predicted both the House and Senate races correctly.

You called the Senate correctly. For whatever reason you did not predict the House results. Congratulations on your single prediction.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by themystic

Once again Trump cant keep America safe.

Who said Freedom was safe?