PDA

View Full Version : America is conservative



Cody Covey
07-09-2009, 03:59 PM
Despite what Jeff and Henry will have you think the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx

BonMallari
07-09-2009, 04:35 PM
I think what the poll didnt show is that America is fiscally conservative, but morally moderate to liberal..also what has been pointed out on this forum by liberals is that many "conservatives" crossed over and voted for BHO, he didnt get elected by Democrats only. The libs got their electorate whipped into a frenzy, the Repubs sat back and figured common sense would prevail and kept waiting for the last minute hail mary, which never showed up

YardleyLabs
07-09-2009, 05:01 PM
Despite what Jeff and Henry will have you think the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx

You have to read the whole story.

On one hand, Americans self report that they have become more conservative over the last four years. However, only 40% identify themselves as conservative. 34% say the Republican party is just about right in its views whole 42% say the democrats are just about right. However, 48% say democrats are too liberal while 43% say republicans are too conservative. 38% of independents view democrats as being about right while 25% of independents view republicans as being about right.

When you go to specific issues it becomes even less clear. 41% believe that health care is not a government responsibility. 32% want unions to have less influence (35% want more). 39% want the level of immigration to decrease. 36% of Americans consider themselves to be Democrats (22% of these identify themselves as conservatives), and 28% identify themselves as republicans. 37% identify as independents and the majority of these (51%) lean towards democrats.

The big difference is that the republican party has defined itself in a way that 69% of those voting or leaning republican identify themselves as conservatives. By contrast, only 36% of democrats view themselves as liberal, suggesting that democrats have successfully captured the center while republicans are talking about how to purgre themselves of the few moderates and liberals that still identify with the party.

What does all of this mean? I would draw a few conclusions:

The 2008 election, as I have suggested before, was more a reflection of the republicans shooting themselves than of the democrats winning the hearts and souls of the voters.
While the republican "base" likes to claim that the party's losses result from straying too far from conservative issues, the numbers suggest that the party is alienating the moderates that it needs to put together an election victory.
If republicans base their strategy of lower taxes, keeping government out of health care, closing off immigration, and increasing government's role in protecting traditional values, they will lose.
If they focus on strong defense, responsible economic development, some improvements in health care accessibility, no increases in middle class taxes, and real deficit reduction, they may well be able to win.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-09-2009, 05:53 PM
My belief is that this "sample" (s) of the greater public opinion is a bunch of BS....

I think most of us miss the real message.....THEY ONLY INTERVIEWED 1100 people and say they are confident (95%) they have a factored margin of error of + or - 3 %

169,000,000 registered voters in 2008 gets lumped into 1100 people...COME ON.

source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_voters_in_the_2008_Presidentia l_election

(I could have used cencus.usa.gov but they only show up to 2006 and the number was less 136 million)

I also know from life and common sense that REPUBLICANS are LESS likely to identify themselves as such as apposed to Democrats who generally will tell who ever it is they are talking to ....Republican voting people generally feel it is a private matter and keep to themselves, especially the elderly, what that means is REPUBLICANS are more likely to tell this telephone interviewer to GO TO HELL while democrats whill tell you everything you want to know and more . "Young Republicans" are becomming a voice in todays world and arn't so "hushed" when it comes to professing there political ties...

I would say that to try to reflect an accurate picture is almost IMPOSSIBLE while only gathering information from 1100 people....It just will not allow for a compete sample population.

Had the report said that a population of 50,000 was taken with a margin of error + or - 3 %, I might give it a grain of salt, and that is is big maybe.

NCA

dnf777
07-09-2009, 08:30 PM
My belief is that this "sample" (s) of the greater public opinion is a bunch of BS....

I think most of us miss the real message.....THEY ONLY INTERVIEWED 1100 people and say they are confident (95%) they have a factored margin of error of + or - 3 %

169,000,000 registered voters in 2008 gets lumped into 1100 people...COME ON.

source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_voters_in_the_2008_Presidentia l_election

(I could have used cencus.usa.gov but they only show up to 2006 and the number was less 136 million)

I also know from life and common sense that REPUBLICANS are LESS likely to identify themselves as such as apposed to Democrats who generally will tell who ever it is they are talking to ....Republican voting people generally feel it is a private matter and keep to themselves, especially the elderly, what that means is REPUBLICANS are more likely to tell this telephone interviewer to GO TO HELL while democrats whill tell you everything you want to know and more . "Young Republicans" are becomming a voice in todays world and arn't so "hushed" when it comes to professing there political ties...

I would say that to try to reflect an accurate picture is almost IMPOSSIBLE while only gathering information from 1100 people....It just will not allow for a compete sample population.

Had the report said that a population of 50,000 was taken with a margin of error + or - 3 %, I might give it a grain of salt, and that is is big maybe.

NCA

I would agree with most of what you said, except that conservatives are less vociferous. Look at the postings on this forum, and you will see conservative posts outnumber liberal or moderate posts my a large margin.

I cannot find a liberal or neutral news-talk show anywhere on the radio dial. I understand XM has a liberal station, and that's about it. When I think of hosts....Hannity, Limbaugh, Colter, Malkin....the list goes on and on. I don't think those people necessarily reflect the views of most republicans however. Maybe that's why many old-school conservatives feel left out, and why the neocon era has seemingly come to an end. Christie Todd-Whitman's book, "It's My Party Too" is a nice summary of what has happened, and it was out before the election.

Cody Covey
07-09-2009, 08:38 PM
i would disagree and say that most do actually agree with their views. Hell even Franco says he doesn't agree with them but when you listen to what he wants for the party and what they want its identical. Some people don't want to associate themselves with those hosts but that doesn't mean that they don't agree with their views on policy.

dnf777
07-09-2009, 08:48 PM
i would disagree and say that most do actually agree with their views. Hell even Franco says he doesn't agree with them but when you listen to what he wants for the party and what they want its identical. Some people don't want to associate themselves with those hosts but that doesn't mean that they don't agree with their views on policy.

I think many may agree with *some* of what they say, but not enough to want to be associated with them.

Cody Covey
07-09-2009, 09:30 PM
Well to put you on the spot lol what don't you agree with?

YardleyLabs
07-10-2009, 05:46 AM
My belief is that this "sample" (s) of the greater public opinion is a bunch of BS....

I think most of us miss the real message.....THEY ONLY INTERVIEWED 1100 people and say they are confident (95%) they have a factored margin of error of + or - 3 %

169,000,000 registered voters in 2008 gets lumped into 1100 people...COME ON.

source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_voters_in_the_2008_Presidentia l_election

(I could have used cencus.usa.gov but they only show up to 2006 and the number was less 136 million)

I also know from life and common sense that REPUBLICANS are LESS likely to identify themselves as such as apposed to Democrats who generally will tell who ever it is they are talking to ....Republican voting people generally feel it is a private matter and keep to themselves, especially the elderly, what that means is REPUBLICANS are more likely to tell this telephone interviewer to GO TO HELL while democrats whill tell you everything you want to know and more . "Young Republicans" are becomming a voice in todays world and arn't so "hushed" when it comes to professing there political ties...

I would say that to try to reflect an accurate picture is almost IMPOSSIBLE while only gathering information from 1100 people....It just will not allow for a compete sample population.

Had the report said that a population of 50,000 was taken with a margin of error + or - 3 %, I might give it a grain of salt, and that is is big maybe.

NCA

1. Poll accuracy: This is sort of like a science vs. faith discussion. On one and you have decades of detailed analysis and testing on top of centuries during which theories of probability have been developed that show that it is indeed possible to estimate opinion at a moment in time for an infinite population using a relatively small sample if you do it correctly. On the other hand is the blind faith that more is better. The fact is that it is more accurate to predict opinion on a discrete issue for the entire US population using a carefully selected sample of 1100 people than it would be to succeed in having 20% of the population call into a designated number to tell you their opinions (American Idol approach). The problem with polls is that everything depends on doing it correctly. How you select people, how you contact them, how you handle non-respondents, how you word the question (e.g. Do you ask people if they are pro-life or ask them if they believe all abortions should be illegal except in cases of ......), etc., all have a major impact on the result. Unfortunately, many people organizing polls are more interested in shaping opinion than in finding out about opinion and design their "polls" for that purpose (e.g. the NRA "polls" that I always receive with a request for money).
What makes you think that Republicans are less likely to respond to pollsters? There is a fair amount of evidence that people are generally reluctant to admit to prejudice, odd sexual behavior, drug/alcohol use, and even strongly negative opinions in polls. Are you basing your assumptions about republican poll response deficiency on characteristics they share with those other groups that are known to be reluctant responders? ;-) The fact is that extreme conservatives outnumber extreme liberals by about 2:1 (17% vs 8% in the Gallup poll). I've never found either group to be shy about ramming its beliefs down the ears of anyone in range.

road kill
07-10-2009, 06:13 AM
1. Poll accuracy: This is sort of like a science vs. faith discussion. On one and you have decades of detailed analysis and testing on top of centuries during which theories of probability have been developed that show that it is indeed possible to estimate opinion at a moment in time for an infinite population using a relatively small sample if you do it correctly. On the other hand is the blind faith that more is better. The fact is that it is more accurate to predict opinion on a discrete issue for the entire US population using a carefully selected sample of 1100 people than it would be to succeed in having 20% of the population call into a designated number to tell you their opinions (American Idol approach). The problem with polls is that everything depends on doing it correctly. How you select people, how you contact them, how you handle non-respondents, how you word the question (e.g. Do you ask people if they are pro-life or ask them if they believe all abortions should be illegal except in cases of ......), etc., all have a major impact on the result. Unfortunately, many people organizing polls are more interested in shaping opinion than in finding out about opinion and design their "polls" for that purpose (e.g. the NRA "polls" that I always receive with a request for money).
What makes you think that Republicans are less likely to respond to pollsters? There is a fair amount of evidence that people are generally reluctant to admit to prejudice, odd sexual behavior, drug/alcohol use, and even strongly negative opinions in polls. Are you basing your assumptions about republican poll response deficiency on characteristics they share with those other groups that are known to be reluctant responders? ;-) The fact is that extreme conservatives outnumber extreme liberals by about 2:1 (17% vs 8% in the Gallup poll). I've never found either group to be shy about ramming its beliefs down the ears of anyone in range.

Because they are at work??;)

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-10-2009, 02:05 PM
1. Poll accuracy: This is sort of like a science vs. faith discussion. On one and you have decades of detailed analysis and testing on top of centuries during which theories of probability have been developed that show that it is indeed possible to estimate opinion at a moment in time for an infinite population using a relatively small sample if you do it correctly. On the other hand is the blind faith that more is better. The fact is that it is more accurate to predict opinion on a discrete issue for the entire US population using a carefully selected sample of 1100 people than it would be to succeed in having 20% of the population call into a designated number to tell you their opinions (American Idol approach). The problem with polls is that everything depends on doing it correctly. How you select people, how you contact them, how you handle non-respondents, how you word the question (e.g. Do you ask people if they are pro-life or ask them if they believe all abortions should be illegal except in cases of ......), etc., all have a major impact on the result. Unfortunately, many people organizing polls are more interested in shaping opinion than in finding out about opinion and design their "polls" for that purpose (e.g. the NRA "polls" that I always receive with a request for money).
What makes you think that Republicans are less likely to respond to pollsters? There is a fair amount of evidence that people are generally reluctant to admit to prejudice, odd sexual behavior, drug/alcohol use, and even strongly negative opinions in polls. Are you basing your assumptions about republican poll response deficiency on characteristics they share with those other groups that are known to be reluctant responders? ;-) The fact is that extreme conservatives outnumber extreme liberals by about 2:1 (17% vs 8% in the Gallup poll). I've never found either group to be shy about ramming its beliefs down the ears of anyone in range.


In response to #1..you go from decades of analysis to centuries of "probable theroies"

you know I have this friend, he says the wieredest stuff...like.."you know Im probabbly 100% right that this might work". or when we Fish..I mean seriously when we FISH..."I guarentee, there is probably fish over there" So tell me the difference between these statements, probable theroies, and faith. While I do agree that alot of it depends on how a question is phrased, it almost proves my point that when you phrase a question such as pro-life or not a republican is more likely to say "no comment" where my experience is a democrat is gonna say "pro-abortion all the way".

Im just saying.

and in response to #2

hey, if that how your twisted mind read what I was saying who am I to stop you...;-);-) the fact still remains the same while extreme conservatives may out number democrats 2:1...for every one democrat that says he or she is such, there is usually only .5 republicans that will say they are....

DNF....

your right, just like I said, young republicans are becoming less bashful when it comes to pronouncing there party ties....

but your analogy of this board doesnt hold water....that is because the majority of us that speak out on this board do so becuause we are in the company of others with like minds...

Get 5 republicans together and they all admit to it amoungst themselves and they talk all day long....they are comfortable about it..birds of a feather and all that jazz...

But I would and do challenge that if you were to sit outside your local store and ask people that entered..if they were Republican or Democrat (and nothing more) the number of people saying they are Democrat would be higher the number of republican would be low and the number of people saying "no comment" would be higher again with the majority of those people actually be republican....

out in public republicans tend to be GUARDED, or conservative (go figure) in announcing there political ties...

NCA

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-10-2009, 02:16 PM
To me this is a better example of how a poll and how it gains its numbers should look...and even then I dont (and this is just my opinion from what I have gathered from my own conversations) buy it as totally accurate...but at least the pool is extensively larger..


Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based upon telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002. The margin of error for the full sample is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence.

15 x 12 =180,000 people a year

x 7 years 9 months = 1,395,000 people polled....just a bit better dont you think....

taken from:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

and this woudl show that DEMOCRAT's still hold a larger identified party affiliation.

NCA

YardleyLabs
07-10-2009, 04:38 PM
In response to #1..you go from decades of analysis to centuries of "probable theroies"

you know I have this friend, he says the wieredest stuff...like.."you know Im probabbly 100% right that this might work". or when we Fish..I mean seriously when we FISH..."I guarentee, there is probably fish over there" So tell me the difference between these statements, probable theroies, and faith. While I do agree that alot of it depends on how a question is phrased, it almost proves my point that when you phrase a question such as pro-life or not a republican is more likely to say "no comment" where my experience is a democrat is gonna say "pro-abortion all the way".
...
I didn't say "probable theories", but "theories of probability". It's an area of math that has been in development since the 18th century and addresses the specifics of how properties of large populations may be estimated with a high degree of precision using samples that are relatively small. It also addresses factors that can make such estimates unreliable. The fact that your friend's comment is ignorant and that you have no basis for knowing how either a republican or democrat would respond unless you have conducted experiments (using appropriate samples and solid analyze of results) has nothing to do with the accuracy of polls. The fact that your gut tells you how a republican or democrat would respond is an act of faith since, by your own statements, you would need to interview 50000 or so people to verify your assumption.

All the major pollsters, including Rasmussen and Gallup among others, interview thousands of people each week. Rasmussen's work requires a little more "interpretation" than most because they use computer calls to obtain their data. This result in a higher non-response rate and a different pattern of responses in some circumstances (you can find this information on the Rasmussen web site). As with all legitimate pollsters, part of the process is analyzing biases in the responses received so that these may be taken into consideration is interpreting the results. Rasmussen does not use larger samples than other pollsters. The fact is that polls tend to fall into a limited number of sample size ranges: 300, 1100, 3000, etc. In each case, a dramatic increase in sample size is needed to hit the next level of precision.

The primary reason for expanding sample size is to obtain results differentiated by sub-group. That is, if I want to be able to draw conclusions about differences in opinion among democrats (or republicans) of different age groups, I need to have a sample big enough so that the subset of respondents that are democrats is still large enough to be statistically significant. Whether you believe in sample based studies or not, your life is affected every day by the results of such studies. Thus includes the routing protocols used for transmitting telephone conversations, the studies done to validate medications, the criteria used to select tax returns for audit, etc., etc.

As with many things, and as I said originally, this is really a matter of faith vs. science. I'll stick with science. That doesn't mean that I believe anyone should simply buy into poll results. However, you should know enough about the process to have a basis for differentiating between results that are likely to have some validity and charlatans manipulating the process to sell snake oil. The fact that you agree with the results should make you more cautious, not more accepting. We are all more likely to accept BS when we like the results.

EDIT: By the way, each sample is unique. You cannot add the results together unless you ask the same question in the same way during the same time period each time. However, when you repeat the same polling process every week for years, as all the major pollsters do for key questions, you are better able to recognize the skewed samples when they happen.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-10-2009, 05:13 PM
As with many things, and as I said originally, this is really a matter of faith vs. science. I'll stick with science. That doesn't mean that I believe anyone should simply buy into poll results. However, you should know enough about the process to have a basis for differentiating between results that are likely to have some validity and charlatans manipulating the process to sell snake oil. The fact that you agree with the results should make you more cautious, not more accepting. We are all more likely to accept BS when we like the results.
EDIT: By the way, each sample is unique. You cannot add the results together unless you ask the same question in the same way during the same time period each time. However, when you repeat the same polling process every week for years, as all the major pollsters do for key questions, you are better able to recognize the skewed samples when they happen.


Jeff,

The first bolden protion of the quote...

I do know enough about the process to have a knowledge of how it works and thus the reason for my calling it BS....

The second bolden and red lettered protion of the qutoe...

The fact (as you put it) is that I DO NOT agree with the study and I DO NOT agree that American is more conservative (based on the results of the poll of 1100 people)

I feel that america is, has been, and or becomming WAY TO LIBERAL...

I guess you could make an arguement that I contradict myself because I am saying on the one hand that conservatives are more Hush Hush, thus resulting that more people are holding back and actually feel conservative to the core. But reality is and what I should have said more clearly is that what ever that poll says about Americans being more conservative, what we are actually seeing on a daily basis is that

AMERICA UNDOUBTABLY IS BECOMMING MORE AND MORE LIBERAL, with there view of society and how it should be run, formed, and lived....

Jake..NCA

edit: about your edit....I do not know why your explaining that you cant add statistical "evidence" (oxymoron) unless your saying that I attemped to do that, maybe you were just trying to inform me of that. But you should know, I know that...lol

YardleyLabs
07-10-2009, 05:22 PM
Jeff,

...
edit: about your edit....I do not know why your explaining that you cant add statistical "evidence" (oxymoron) unless your saying that I attemped to do that, maybe you were just trying to inform me of that. But you should know, I know that...lol
I did it based on your earlier comments about the total numbers of people questioned by Rasmussen over the course of a year and more. The cumulative total of 1.395 million (your number) does not affect the validity of their survey results in their daily surveys.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-10-2009, 10:24 PM
very true as I understand it in America....1/3 is and always will be the same as 33000/100000...but I contend that if you wanted to convince a large audience a sample of 100000 is better than a samle of 3....

As I see it, you suggest that a sample taken at 0800 will be different if the same sample is taken at 2000....or if I ask the same question phrased differently...or if I use emphisis and puncuation differently on key words..etc,etc,etc....your words not mine...

"The problem with polls is that everything depends on doing it correctly. How you select people, how you contact them, how you handle non-respondents, how you word the question"

So using your own words again...it would seem that the Rasmussen poll would be a better indicator...

"All the major pollsters, including Rasmussen and Gallup among others, interview thousands of people each week. Rasmussen's work requires a little more "interpretation" than most because they use computer calls to obtain their data."

furthermore, again just making sure I understand you correctly...

"The fact that your friend's comment is ignorant and that you have no basis for knowing how either a republican or democrat would respond unless you have conducted experiments (using appropriate samples and solid analyze of results)"

If I were to sit outside my local store and ask 1100 people (total sampled in the orgional article posted) and analized it properly maybe using say a professor of mathimatics majoring in probability and statistics I could then extrapolate that information to fit the bill of Americans and there political ties...

OR would I have to as you say.....

"The fact is that it is more accurate to predict opinion on a discrete issue for the entire US population using a carefully selected sample of 1100 people"

Carefully select my sample population.....

ahhh, the silver lining.

NCA

YardleyLabs
07-11-2009, 06:18 AM
Actually, sitting outside your local store would provide a non-random sample of people shopping in your store who agreed to talk with you. It would not be projectable to any broader population at all. The reason samples taken over the course of a year cannot be added together is because you are measuring a moving target: public opinion. If you were measuring hair color, a sample taken over the course of a year would not be bad.

All in all, this is like talking to those who condemn FF and e-collars without ever having done or used either or having seen the results. Both tools can be used inappropriately. However, those who simply oppose them out of ignorance are only showing what they don't know.

dnf777
07-11-2009, 06:42 AM
Actually, sitting outside your local store would provide a non-random sample of people shopping in your store who agreed to talk with you. It would not be projectable to any broader population at all. The reason samples taken over the course of a year cannot be added together is because you are measuring a moving target: public opinion. If you were measuring hair color, a sample taken over the course of a year would not be bad.

All in all, this is like talking to those who condemn FF and e-collars without ever having done or used either or having seen the results. Both tools can be used inappropriately. However, those who simply oppose them out of ignorance are only showing what they don't know.


Well put. While there are certainly entire fields of mathematics and statistics involved in polling, it is very rare that conditions will allow a scientifically sound, mathematically solid study or poll to be designed and executed. (from my experience in medicine....we're always hitting a moving, complex target with uncontrollable variables) The *good* statisticians temper the math and science with intuition, judgement, and a little luck. That's why polls are never perfectly accurate, but the good ones consistently come close. And that's why they get paid the big bucks from media and interested parties.

Like much of this world, the science must be polished with the art.

Enjoy the weekend, all.....I'm got tagged with the w/e duty this time.:-x

YardleyLabs
07-11-2009, 07:36 AM
Well put. While there are certainly entire fields of mathematics and statistics involved in polling, it is very rare that conditions will allow a scientifically sound, mathematically solid study or poll to be designed and executed. (from my experience in medicine....we're always hitting a moving, complex target with uncontrollable variables) The *good* statisticians temper the math and science with intuition, judgement, and a little luck. That's why polls are never perfectly accurate, but the good ones consistently come close. And that's why they get paid the big bucks from media and interested parties.

Like much of this world, the science must be polished with the art.

Enjoy the weekend, all.....I'm got tagged with the w/e duty this time.:-x
The judgment criticism is completely accurate. One of the classic pieces of stupidity from the earlyyears of political polling was a Lou Harris poll done for a gubernatorial candidate. What it showed was the following a single speech, the candidate's support among Irish Catholics had fallen 50%. The campaign was in panic as they tried to figure out what they could do to win that support back. What nobody looked at was that their sample included less than 10 Irish Catholics. By the next week the numbers had swung back again. Opinion polling is actually very difficult to do well and is extraordinarilly expensive. In a campaign it is one of the biggest expenses behind advertising. Sometimes these polls are deliberately biased to create evidence of support when a candidate is having trouble with fund raising. However, strong candidates work hard to avoid tha form of bias. What they need are accurate indicators that may help them win in the voting booth.
The same is true of companies trying to sell their products to consumers.

Politicians and marketers have paid for most of the improvements in polling techniques since the 50's when opinion polling first became a significant force. To meet their needs, a lot of progress has been made and the reliability of polls has improved dramatically. The biggest problems today come not from weaknesses in polling methods, but from deliberate efforts to distort the results to push specific positions (In fact, these are called "push" polls.). This may be seen all over. From examples like the NRA "polls" that I mentioned before (liberal groups do them also, but most on this forum never see those) to near fraudulent aboses of statistics such as those where auto insurers talk about how much subscribers saved by swapping from one company to the other (did you really think that people who received higher quotes would switch anyway?).

My only weekend duty is a litter of eight four day old pups. That keeps me on a very short leash.

dnf777
07-11-2009, 10:59 AM
I've always likened opinion polls to the Bible. Two exactly opposite points of view can be equally "proven" and supported from the same sources! Hence the endless arguments!

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-11-2009, 01:42 PM
Actually, sitting outside your local store would provide a non-random sample of people shopping in your store who agreed to talk with you. It would not be projectable to any broader population at all. The reason samples taken over the course of a year cannot be added together is because you are measuring a moving target: public opinion. If you were measuring hair color, a sample taken over the course of a year would not be bad.

All in all, this is like talking to those who condemn FF and e-collars without ever having done or used either or having seen the results. Both tools can be used inappropriately. However, those who simply oppose them out of ignorance are only showing what they don't know.

Yes it would be a random sample...I am not asking them questions about where they normally shop...and them agreeing to talk with me is the same as peopel answering a phone call or not...just as the numbers assigned to call a home are a random sample and if people decided to talk is as well.

Jesus Cristo...your hung up on this add them together issue..I never added the results of TWO DIFFERENT POLLS...you did read the article..(assuming).it is the same poll and I gave the numbers as a whole total population....instead of how they presented them...on a month and year total....Just like in math...the same poll and same questions asked over the course of 7years and 9 months is the same as asking 1.395 million people the same question...and you can keep trying to insult me and or my intelligence all you want with your big words and thinking I am not quick witted enough to read "those who condemn FF and E-collars with out ever having done or used either or having seen the results" followed by..."However, those who simply oppose them out of ignorance are only showing what they don't know"

Like people who condemn Digital SLR....bla bla bla....

twist it how ever you want....america is not becomming more conservative.

NCA

dnf777
07-11-2009, 03:12 PM
Yes it would be a random sample...I am not asking them questions about where they normally shop...and them agreeing to talk with me is the same as peopel answering a phone call or not...just as the numbers assigned to call a home are a random sample and if people decided to talk is as well.

Jesus Cristo...your hung up on this add them together issue..I never added the results of TWO DIFFERENT POLLS...you did read the article..(assuming).it is the same poll and I gave the numbers as a whole total population....instead of how they presented them...on a month and year total....Just like in math...the same poll and same questions asked over the course of 7years and 9 months is the same as asking 1.395 million people the same question...and you can keep trying to insult me and or my intelligence all you want with your big words and thinking I am not quick witted enough to read "those who condemn FF and E-collars with out ever having done or used either or having seen the results" followed by..."However, those who simply oppose them out of ignorance are only showing what they don't know"

Like people who condemn Digital SLR....bla bla bla....

twist it how ever you want....america is not becomming more conservative.

NCA

In regards to polling only, (not the specific issue here) Standing outside a store polling is NOT random. You have excluded many elderly people who have others shop for them, or very poor people who don't own cars. Then, which store...Whole Foods in a nice suburb...or Stop-N-Rob in the ghetto?
Phone surveys survey only those who have phones and don't have them shut off, or excludes harder-working americans who are rarely at home, and may use cell phones on the road.....Many doctors, lawyers, and other professionals choose to be unlisted, and therefore won't be included in a "randomly" generated list.

Lots of BS, I know, but a TRUE random survey is a rare breed, indeed! Selection bias is like mosquitoes, no matter how hard you try, you can't get rid of all of 'em.

BonMallari
07-11-2009, 03:58 PM
I think one thing that has not been pointed out is the obvious..the groups that commission (pay for) these polls expect a desired result to support their premise, thesis,political stance. When Rasmussen, or Lundsford poll they are doing so for Fox, CNN uses Gallup or Harris as does USA Today, both political sides use them, both spin them the way they want, and obviously the only poll that counts is the one on election day

But in Today's world peoples opinions are easily swayed and can be changed in an instant, polls can influence people to vote for a candidate, just because its the popular thing to do and many people all want to say they voted for the winner, but will disclaim that winner if things go south

YardleyLabs
07-11-2009, 04:40 PM
I think one thing that has not been pointed out is the obvious..the groups that commission (pay for) these polls expect a desired result to support their premise, thesis,political stance. When Rasmussen, or Lundsford poll they are doing so for Fox, CNN uses Gallup or Harris as does USA Today, both political sides use them, both spin them the way they want, and obviously the only poll that counts is the one on election day

But in Today's world peoples opinions are easily swayed and can be changed in an instant, polls can influence people to vote for a candidate, just because its the popular thing to do and many people all want to say they voted for the winner, but will disclaim that winner if things go south
You are of course correct. Rasmussen, for example, does polling for Republican campaigns. Gallup by contrast accepts no contracts with political parties or political candidates. All the major pollsters partner with news organizations, and all earn a large portion (usually the majority) of their revenues from commercial clients seeking information of products under development or being marketed. Gallup actually began as a business serving movie companies in the 1930's trying to measure audience appeal of different movies. While the ultimate objective of polling is to provide the client with tools to help influence opinions, the legitimate companies will not accept contracts that are seeking biased results for push marketing.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-11-2009, 04:56 PM
And so...the truth finally comes out...

the poll origionally posted and my reference to Rassmus, can be summed up as

BS...I think that was my origional POINT.

or there again, my point could also be that a poll with 1000000 people I FEEL is more accurate than a poll with 1000, which ever way you dice it. I dont care about your "theories of probability" or "probability theories" both of which coincidently happen to only be THEORIES which could translate to FAITH (in your research about your THEORY)

Fact is...if you asked people hey, did you know that Americans love the symbol ? more than the symbol !...and the person asked you well how do you know..

and your explaination was..well I gathered data from 1000 people.

Most common sense, semi educated, warm blooded people are gonna LAUGH at you, for trying to make that fit the bill of AMERICA.

just saying....thats my THEROY.

NCA

PS..Jeff it has been fun, but sometimes just sometimes, I see right through the fog ;-);-) no hard feelings its all in good conversation.

dnf777
07-11-2009, 05:04 PM
I think one thing that has not been pointed out is the obvious..the groups that commission (pay for) these polls expect a desired result to support their premise, thesis,political stance. When Rasmussen, or Lundsford poll they are doing so for Fox, CNN uses Gallup or Harris as does USA Today, both political sides use them, both spin them the way they want, and obviously the only poll that counts is the one on election day

But in Today's world peoples opinions are easily swayed and can be changed in an instant, polls can influence people to vote for a candidate, just because its the popular thing to do and many people all want to say they voted for the winner, but will disclaim that winner if things go south

So true. Polls that are commissioned to help guide campaigns need to be honest and true. Polls that are released through the media in attempts to sway or influence people or policy do NOT.

When reading the medical literature, I have an entire algorithm I go through before even reading the substance! Sometimes, the bias resides not in the polls or studies themselves, but in the selective publishing or scrapping process. If I see a journal with front and back leaf glossy ads for a drug or product, I won't expect to see any studies accepted for publication that is not favorable towards those products. Obviously, some journals and media outlets are more scrupulous than others, but we've seen even the "big boys" get pie on their faces. Ah, just another by-product of capitalism!

YardleyLabs
07-11-2009, 05:24 PM
And so...the truth finally comes out...

the poll origionally posted and my reference to Rassmus, can be summed up as

BS...I think that was my origional POINT.

or there again, my point could also be that a poll with 1000000 people I FEEL is more accurate than a poll with 1000, which ever way you dice it. I dont care about your "theories of probability" or "probability theories" both of which coincidently happen to only be THEORIES which could translate to FAITH (in your research about your THEORY)

Fact is...if you asked people hey, did you know that Americans love the symbol ? more than the symbol !...and the person asked you well how do you know..

and your explaination was..well I gathered data from 1000 people.

Most common sense, semi educated, warm blooded people are gonna LAUGH at you, for trying to make that fit the bill of AMERICA.

just saying....thats my THEROY.

NCA

PS..Jeff it has been fun, but sometimes just sometimes, I see right through the fog ;-);-) no hard feelings its all in good conversation.

NCA,

When it comes to polling and the factors that make them more or less accurate, your understanding is so far away from reality that I don't even know where to begin in trying to get you to understand the issues.

People have been studying ways to improve polling for around 70 years. For the most part, they take their work pretty seriously and conform to very high standards scientific research. You begin by assuming that they all have the intellectual ethics of an O'Reilly or Hannity or Beck or Sharpton or Geraldo Rivera (i.e. none).

My own knowledge in these areas is limited. However, I did spend a few years in graduate school studying sampling and polling techniques including preparing critiques of a number of political surveys, and I have prepared the statistical arguments for expert testimony on sampling techniques for a few court cases. Unfortunately, what makes statistical studies so easy to manipulate is a combination of gullibility and the willingness of so many to excuse fraud as long as its practitioners are selling the "right" kind of snake oil.

mjh345
07-11-2009, 07:06 PM
And so...the truth finally comes out...

the poll origionally posted and my reference to Rassmus, can be summed up as

BS...I think that was my origional POINT.

or there again, my point could also be that a poll with 1000000 people I FEEL is more accurate than a poll with 1000, which ever way you dice it. I dont care about your "theories of probability" or "probability theories" both of which coincidently happen to only be THEORIES which could translate to FAITH (in your research about your THEORY)

Fact is...if you asked people hey, did you know that Americans love the symbol ? more than the symbol !...and the person asked you well how do you know..

and your explaination was..well I gathered data from 1000 people.

Most common sense, semi educated, warm blooded people are gonna LAUGH at you, for trying to make that fit the bill of AMERICA.

just saying....thats my THEROY.

NCA

PS..Jeff it has been fun, but sometimes just sometimes, I see right through the fog ;-);-) no hard feelings its all in good conversation.


HUUNNHH??!!

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-11-2009, 08:46 PM
you know sometimes the people that are, how should I say "book smart"

cant see beyond the end of the next paragraph.

NCA

YardleyLabs
07-12-2009, 05:15 AM
you know sometimes the people that are, how should I say "book smart"

cant see beyond the end of the next paragraph.

NCA
NCA,

I agree completely. But that doesn't mean they are alway wrong.;-) Have a good day.

tpaschal30
07-12-2009, 07:53 PM
If America or Massachusetts for that matter is not conservative, why won't they allow a up or down vote on gay marriage?

dnf777
07-12-2009, 08:23 PM
If America or Massachusetts for that matter is not conservative, why won't they allow a up or down vote on gay marriage?

In our democracy (or represantative democracy) not *everything* is determined by majority vote. Certain "unalienable rights" and premises were laid as foundations, and are not subject to simple referendum.

A simple example is the DC gun-law. The courts decided that even though DC had a majority vote to ban guns under the old law, it violated a founding principle, and therefore could not stand. I for one, don't want my fundamental rights subject to mob rule. That be the case, we might lose many things dear to us, because we don't happen to fall in the majority. Some things that are important to others, seem ridiculous to us, but deserve the same consideration and protection as our issues. That's why we have three separate branches of government, and it's worked pretty well so far.

Generally speaking, constitutional amendments PROTECT rights, not specifically take them away. The constitution is not a totally inclusive delineation of rights. If something is not specifically mentioned, then it rests with the states or the people, unless it infringes on the rights of others.

tpaschal30
07-13-2009, 05:18 AM
In our democracy (or represantative democracy) not *everything* is determined by majority vote. Certain "unalienable rights" and premises were laid as foundations, and are not subject to simple referendum.

A simple example is the DC gun-law. The courts decided that even though DC had a majority vote to ban guns under the old law, it violated a founding principle, and therefore could not stand. I for one, don't want my fundamental rights subject to mob rule. That be the case, we might lose many things dear to us, because we don't happen to fall in the majority. Some things that are important to others, seem ridiculous to us, but deserve the same consideration and protection as our issues. That's why we have three separate branches of government, and it's worked pretty well so far.

Generally speaking, constitutional amendments PROTECT rights, not specifically take them away. The constitution is not a totally inclusive delineation of rights. If something is not specifically mentioned, then it rests with the states or the people, unless it infringes on the rights of others.

I know that. I also know it would not pass, because America is conservative. The original question.

Pete
07-13-2009, 07:57 AM
Ones persuasion is made manifest by actions not words.
Most city people vote liberal thats proven. most rural area's are conservative. Thats proven.
People do different things in cities than in rural communities.
And birds of a feather tend to flock together. If your born and raised in the city and hate it,,, your probably conservative,,you fish,hunt listen to country music and all affiliated ammusements.

If you grew up in the country and hate it ,, you love shopping and malls fancy things and you like all kinds of cultural stuff ., It bothers you to step in horse sh!t .

No poll just an obsevation.

Pete