| The appropriate use of the word Nazi 10:00 - Aug 5 with 3239 views | KeithHaynes |
|  |
| |  |
| The appropriate use of the word Nazi on 15:36 - Aug 11 with 331 views | controversial_jack |
| The appropriate use of the word Nazi on 13:14 - Aug 11 by Dr_Parnassus |
I doesn’t matter if you stated it previously, it isn’t accurate. Hence why there are calls to do away with it, it’s nonsense.
And that’s just for binary answers. Let alone your version which is asking views which can be asked, answered and interpreted in any way the person wishes.
It’s fraudulent. Liking it or not is irrelevant, doesn’t come into it.
Same as the “50% of Republicans support the insurrection at the Capitol” headline (after asking 1000 people a question they didn’t specify). Equally as ludicrous, designed for political headlines.
You will just have to deal with it I’m afraid. |
It's not designed for headlines, Data is everywhere and covers basically everything, from consumerism to elections. It is very specific and very accurate,
Data companies basically know what everyone is going to vote. they know their political allegiances and views.They have scientists and experts working on this full time and I have stated it's very accurate and is used to target voters.Companies can virtually guarantee a party an election win if they have the funds. It is very scary, sinister and is often borderline legal.There is very often no written contracts or paper trail.
Data was used to influence and elect Trump and also Brexit. |  | | |
| The appropriate use of the word Nazi on 16:35 - Aug 11 with 322 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The appropriate use of the word Nazi on 15:36 - Aug 11 by controversial_jack |
It's not designed for headlines, Data is everywhere and covers basically everything, from consumerism to elections. It is very specific and very accurate,
Data companies basically know what everyone is going to vote. they know their political allegiances and views.They have scientists and experts working on this full time and I have stated it's very accurate and is used to target voters.Companies can virtually guarantee a party an election win if they have the funds. It is very scary, sinister and is often borderline legal.There is very often no written contracts or paper trail.
Data was used to influence and elect Trump and also Brexit. |
It is designed for headlines. It’s designed to push a narrative, spread fear and misinformation which people like you lack the capacity to question.
There is no “basically” about it, they have no idea how everyone is going to vote hence why you get nonsense like Hillary has more than a 99.9% chance of winning. She clearly didn’t, not even close.
You are confusing data harvesting for swaying votes by giving tailored advertisements, which is what Cambridge Analytica does, with canvassing polls and extrapolating in the hope they are accurate, which they aren’t.
The former is a political tool to increase the core vote, the latter is mainly used for hyperbole and wild exaggeration, which clearly works with you being a prime example of the type of person that falls for it.
For someone who claims to be controversial you aren’t very critical in your thinking. 91 people. 91. |  |
| |
| The appropriate use of the word Nazi on 17:29 - Aug 11 with 306 views | controversial_jack |
| The appropriate use of the word Nazi on 16:35 - Aug 11 by Dr_Parnassus |
It is designed for headlines. It’s designed to push a narrative, spread fear and misinformation which people like you lack the capacity to question.
There is no “basically” about it, they have no idea how everyone is going to vote hence why you get nonsense like Hillary has more than a 99.9% chance of winning. She clearly didn’t, not even close.
You are confusing data harvesting for swaying votes by giving tailored advertisements, which is what Cambridge Analytica does, with canvassing polls and extrapolating in the hope they are accurate, which they aren’t.
The former is a political tool to increase the core vote, the latter is mainly used for hyperbole and wild exaggeration, which clearly works with you being a prime example of the type of person that falls for it.
For someone who claims to be controversial you aren’t very critical in your thinking. 91 people. 91. |
C A knew how people ere likely to vote, is what I should have said. Yes, they did data harvest and also tailored advertisements to mainly swing voters not core voters.Hilary was defeated and Brexit was successful because of it.
It wasn't 91 people, it was 0ver 1,000, and 91 said they support the white supremacist views so the remainder didn't support them. It worked out about 9% supported them when the figures were extrapolated.
C A and it's parent company were very successful. They employed experts who had 95% success rate at what they did
I don't get swayed by advertisements or hyperbole, my political views are long established and nothing will change that. | | | |
| The appropriate use of the word Nazi on 17:40 - Aug 11 with 301 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The appropriate use of the word Nazi on 17:29 - Aug 11 by controversial_jack |
C A knew how people ere likely to vote, is what I should have said. Yes, they did data harvest and also tailored advertisements to mainly swing voters not core voters.Hilary was defeated and Brexit was successful because of it.
It wasn't 91 people, it was 0ver 1,000, and 91 said they support the white supremacist views so the remainder didn't support them. It worked out about 9% supported them when the figures were extrapolated.
C A and it's parent company were very successful. They employed experts who had 95% success rate at what they did
I don't get swayed by advertisements or hyperbole, my political views are long established and nothing will change that. |
They have no idea, they guess. The polling industry is on its knees, for good reason.
I didn’t say the advertisements were for core voters, I said to increase the core vote. That means canvassing the undecided.
Yes it was 91 people. You have taken 91 people who answered a question that you have no idea of, in a way you have no idea of, for a reason you have no idea of - and you took that to mean there were 22 million Nazi supporters in the States. 1 in 11 people you meet, if you can’t see the clear nonsense in that then you really are incapable of help or reasoning.
You would be lucky if it was 1 in 11,000 let alone 1 in 11.
https://nypost.com/2020/11/03/
Every single major election year, they do it to us. They offer us numbers, and people interested in politics mainline them like heroin. We’re soothed. We’re calmed. Soon we are hungry for more, more, more. By election night, we junkies end up fried, damaged, and in need of rehab.
It’s time to go cold turkey before our last brain cells are destroyed.
Donald Trump won Florida by 3.5 points. In 2016, he won Florida by 1.1. Last night he tripled his margin of victory. And the polling? The final 538 average had Joe Biden winning Florida by 2.5 points. It was off by 5.
You’ll hear people say this is a normal polling error, not a systemic failure. Bullbleep. This is the third race in a row (presidency 2016, governor and Senate 2018, and this) in which Florida polling was almost comically wrong.
That Florida disaster is mirrored in a longer and deeper national story. We’ve lived through a series of national elections in which we were sold a bill of goods – about the Obama re-election in 2012, about the Senate in 2014, about the Trump-Clinton contest in 2016 and about control of the House in 2018. Most polls got all these wrong too.
And yet we fell for their crap again.
Political polling is a fraud. It claims to measure something that, it is now unmistakably clear, cannot be accurately measured. Polling’s seductive promise is that it will take the guesswork out of understanding a complex and changing set of circumstances and replace that uncertainly with something that looks like science.
But it’s less like the physics that helps us shoot rockets into space and more like the set of the spaceship on “Star Trek.” It’s shiny. It has a lot of dials and lights. Things beep. But if you put it on the Cape Canaveral launchpad and lit it on fire, you would just burn to death.
We should have known better than to listen. But we were lulled by the terminology devised by the lousy writers who control the nonsense language of social science – by the “95 percent confidence intervals” and the “margin of error” and “non-response bias.”
This is the kind of argle-bargle that phrenologists must have used to dazzle 19th-century smart people into believing you could make important determinations about a person’s character from the bumps on his skull.
Why does this matter? Because polling is not only bad for the chattering classes, it’s bad for the country. It is used as a form of psychological warfare. It comforts and strengthens those whose priors are confirmed by the numbers and it depresses and paralyzes those who support candidates or policies the polling says are wrong.
Imagine a world in which polling simply became one of 15 different tools used by politicians. Without being able to gull reporters and other politicians with yummy poll data that cannot be trusted, politicians would be compelled to become persuaders. They would have to take up ideas and argue them determinedly and powerfully over a long period of time and slowly and arduously get people on their side.
And the way we would know if their ideas were working would be how well they convinced other politicians and how voters view the decisions that are made as a result of those ideas being put into practice.
It sounds like a ludicrous fantasy. But why, after all this, would anyone ever again listen to a pollster?
Why? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.