*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

This is why polling matters so little....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/polit...ses/index.html
^ Time Stamped 1:21 PM Eastern on 3/27

It is currently 4:46pm eastern on 3/27 as I post this. The following link is time stamped vaguely as "4 hours ago", which puts it within an hour of the previous link.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...6Bj?li=BBnb7Kz

Wow, that's almost as fast as you changed your mind from the polls being promising for R to the polls mattering so little.

And wow, it's almost as if different polls can give different results, as if they're only asking a sample for their opinion rather than taking a census of the entire population. Measurement error wtf???

[BananaStand]

Wow, that's almost as fast as you changed your mind from the polls being promising for R to the polls mattering so little.

And wow, it's almost as if different polls can give different results, as if they're only asking a sample for their opinion rather than taking a census of the entire population. Measurement error wtf???

I'm starting to feel like I have some kind of super power where I can make you stupid. I know you know what's wrong with what you just said there. I know you know that I didn't actually change my mind, and there are quite differentiating circumstances between my two pronouncements about polls. Yet you can't help yourself but play this juvenile and insincere game of gotchya. It seems I can actually MAKE you do this. This is useful for me to know.

Moving on....

If you've paid even a modicum of attention to anything I've ever opined on the subject of polling, you would know that I place almost zero value in any given poll. However, trends in multiple polls over time are substantially useful.

The approval rating poll that I cited states that it's the highest in 11 months. That represents a change in poll results over a long period of time. That's compelling information. Far more compelling than any single poll result.

The other poll I've cited recently is the generic Rep v Dem congressional poll. Again, I cited no specific instance as being meaningful of anything. I specifically discussed the trend over time and it's correlation with legislative successes/failures.

Sample size...wtf??????

The third poll, from The Hill, represents a single poll at a snapshot in time. Bret Samuels decided to use it as a basis for a hit-piece on Trump, which is an act I've decided to mock.

What is further deserving of mockery is this:

Trump also trailed Stephanie Clifford, 42-41, in a hypothetical election matchup, the poll found. However, when using Clifford's porn name, Stormy Daniels, she loses support and trails Trump 41-32, according to the poll.

Now, if they're polling different groups of people with each name, then I guess that's just statistical variance. However, it seems to me that they were polling the same people with different names. If so, then I think that result is worth unpacking.

In a hypothetical matchup against Stephanie, Trump gets 42. He gets LESS against a porn star. That means that there were people that decided a porn star is a better alternative to Trump, but some random bitch isn't. Either that, or there were people who would vote for Trump against some random bitch, but wouldn't bother to vote if he were running against a porn star.

The obvious conclusion from this poll is that the population sampled all had an IQ under 70

[Poopadoop]

...

Can you possibly express your ignorance in fewer words please? Kinda busy right now. thanks.

[BananaStand]

Can you possibly express your ignorance in fewer words please? Kinda busy right now. thanks.

Reading is good for you.

Go learn something