View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 11th, 2017, 12:14 am



Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch 
Author Message
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
njroar wrote:
I'm not moving goalposts. My claim is still the inaccuracies of polling. It was inaccurate when it called Trump up by 7 also.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ngly/?_r=0 - And this was showing inaccuracy towards Repubs.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... tial-race/

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a ... inaccurate

As the last article points out, most won't answer on their cell, so it goes from being a random sample, to a smaller, but available sample, which takes away the randomness of it. The majority are past voters, which removes the new voter (which is a big portion of Trump's support) from the equation. But the methodology doesn't matter, it's the fact that it's been proven to fall outside their own % of error.

If you look at social media, you have an entirely different picture.

Facebook:

Trump Live Stream Post — August 3rd: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views
Clinton Live Stream Post — August 3rd: 11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views

Zero shares. And funny enough the top posters on Clinton's posts are Trump Supporters, while on Trumps posts, they are 99% Trump Supporters.

Twitter:
Trump: 10.6 million followers
Hillary: 8.1 million followers

We know Obama and Hillary have a bunch of robot accounts, while a study verified that 90% of Trump's followers are actual voters with a voting record.

Youtube Live Streams:

Trump: Averages 30,000 live viewers per stream
Clinton: Averages 500 live viewers per stream

Trump has 5900% more live viewers than Clinton.

The same advantages can be seen on Instagram and Reddit. The Hillary for Prison reddit has 3x the amount of subscribers as the Hillary official reddit, so it's not even close.

The traditional polls might show the accurate look at a subset of a subset of the country, but it's not the full picture. Anyone who decides who to vote based on those is being misled. Polls don't show how many will turn out, which is the biggest factor in the election. Showing bad or good polls is targeted at that goal. This year is different and they're paying attention.

The links you posted show that some polls are still accurate, so that undercuts your entire argument. If you want to cherry pick only the polls that performed poorly, go for it. But some polls have performed well, so making blanket statements about them not being scientific, etc. is just not supported by the facts.

The facts also don't support your assertions regarding social media. First of all, the numbers you posted are simply not accurate. Trump's numbers on Facebook are generally accurate (currently at 1.8M views, 147k likes, 22k shares). But the Hillary post you referenced has 353k views, 19k likes, and 2,437 shares. You're correct that Trump's numbers are much higher, but you made a point of calling out ZERO shares, which is a flat out LIE. Also, Trump's is a post on his website, while Clinton's is from a Colorado specific site. So it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. I don't have time to look into all the other numbers right now. I'll try to check later.

But, I get that your point is that Trump has a much bigger social media following than Clinton. That's true. But there's no good reason to fabricate numbers. All that does is undercut your point.

That said, I have no clue if having a big social media following translates to more votes. This election will help show what, if any, indication social media is of voting patterns. To the best of my knowledge, nobody really knows the answer to that yet.

EDITED TO ADD:

I say all this as someone who doesn't really like Hillary. But I hate misleading statements, and I am a big fan of data & facts. If someone posted something inflating Hillary's numbers or said things that were provably untrue in support of her, I'd call that out as well.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


Last edited by Touchdown Jesus on August 9th, 2016, 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.



August 9th, 2016, 2:00 pm
Profile
Online
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3241
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
I took my info from an article posted on August 4th, which those numbers were accurate at that time. So in 5 days, she's generated 2400 shares.

Meanwhile: Image What they try to show
Image what actually was. A whopping 117 people.

Meanwhile Trump's filling arenas. Turnout is key.

As to the effects of social media, just look at 2008. It was credited with Obama's win and that year, turnout was key.


August 9th, 2016, 2:06 pm
Profile
Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 4202
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
njroar wrote:
With the new like statuses, are you clicking like or one of the others? And a positive or negative share is still spreading the information to others. No such thing as bad publicity.


And as a brilliant marketer (and salesman) that is basically Trumps platform. "No such thing as bad publicity". Good lord what a global embarrassment America has become...

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


August 9th, 2016, 3:16 pm
Profile
Online
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3241
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
I don't think you'll find anyone that says he doesn't say stupid things at times. The point is he says them and he's bucking the establishment and fights back against those that try to pass falsehoods out about him. When the media has to resort to claims that he's insane, or that he's dropping out, and ignoring the policies that they say he never talks about and ignoring all of Hillary's gaffes, it's obvious who's setting the message. And when you control the message, and Hillary tries to follow instead of leading, she keeps falling into traps. She tries to pass herself off as an outsider, which she obviously isn't. Everyone knows she lied, but she laughingly tries to deny it.

Everyone keeps falling into the trap. The 50 national security advisors, the Rino's in House and Senate seats, they all publicly distance themselves which is exactly what helps Trump. He's against the establishment and they're showing that. it's laughable that it's an embarrassment though. When you've got obvious corruption and people living above the law in DC, and that's overlooked because someone said something mean, that's the embarrassment. They're exposing themselves so it'll be an easy cleanup once the election is over. What happens when really damning information is released by wikileaks?


August 9th, 2016, 5:26 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2578
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
Hillary and her team cheated to win the primaries (its obvious unless you are oblivious). She IS the Establishment that everybody says they don't trust and want to change. She would probably be going to jail if she wasnt one the rich political elite. Lastly she is either a dangerous flat out liar (likely) or just plain too Incompetent to deal with a world where Hackers pose as much of a threat as Nukes.

Does ANYONE really think Trump is going to go into office, and worry about what he can do for the common man? He is anti-establishment. He will shake things up. He will do what is in his best interest, whether it pisses off the entire world at us, causes a war, or maybe nothing at all. He's a wildcard and a narcissitic egotistical blowhard. Hopefully he will surround himself with smarter men than he and actually heed their advice rather than having his dick/ego make his decisions.

This is by far the worst situation in our lifetimes as far as our primary 2 choices. The only moral non-bad choice is a 3rd party, but it realistically will never be enough to win unless something major comes out to destroy 1 of the 2 leading candidates before the election, and their supporters feel Johnson is a better choice than the opposition.

I will be voting my conscience, and for Johnson, even though it won't matter since I am in CA. That said i'd make that vote anyways, because neither of the other 2 choices is "the lesser evil". Sending the message that the parties must do better if they want our support in the future is the ONLY victory that can come out of this election.

God/Allah/Jehovah/FlyingSpaghettiMonster Help us all.


August 10th, 2016, 2:05 am
Profile ICQ WWW
#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1468
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
Polls are inaccurate and unscienticific. Here's my anecdotes from social media that prove it.

:lol: Nice try nj - you're getting almost as good at goalpost shifting and non-sequiturs as HonestDonald.


August 10th, 2016, 2:21 am
Profile
Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 4202
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
DJ-B wrote:
Hillary and her team cheated to win the primaries (its obvious unless you are oblivious). She IS the Establishment that everybody says they don't trust and want to change. She would probably be going to jail if she wasnt one the rich political elite. Lastly she is either a dangerous flat out liar (likely) or just plain too Incompetent to deal with a world where Hackers pose as much of a threat as Nukes.

Does ANYONE really think Trump is going to go into office, and worry about what he can do for the common man? He is anti-establishment. He will shake things up. He will do what is in his best interest, whether it pisses off the entire world at us, causes a war, or maybe nothing at all. He's a wildcard and a narcissitic egotistical blowhard. Hopefully he will surround himself with smarter men than he and actually heed their advice rather than having his dick/ego make his decisions.

This is by far the worst situation in our lifetimes as far as our primary 2 choices. The only moral non-bad choice is a 3rd party, but it realistically will never be enough to win unless something major comes out to destroy 1 of the 2 leading candidates before the election, and their supporters feel Johnson is a better choice than the opposition.

I will be voting my conscience, and for Johnson, even though it won't matter since I am in CA. That said i'd make that vote anyways, because neither of the other 2 choices is "the lesser evil". Sending the message that the parties must do better if they want our support in the future is the ONLY victory that can come out of this election.

God/Allah/Jehovah/FlyingSpaghettiMonster Help us all.


Where is the like button at? Lol Well said DJB

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


August 10th, 2016, 11:25 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10003
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
Here you go and I agree...

Image

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


August 11th, 2016, 2:25 pm
Profile WWW
Online
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3241
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
njroar wrote:
I'm not moving goalposts. My claim is still the inaccuracies of polling. It was inaccurate when it called Trump up by 7 also.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ngly/?_r=0 - And this was showing inaccuracy towards Repubs.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... tial-race/

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a ... inaccurate

As the last article points out, most won't answer on their cell, so it goes from being a random sample, to a smaller, but available sample, which takes away the randomness of it. The majority are past voters, which removes the new voter (which is a big portion of Trump's support) from the equation. But the methodology doesn't matter, it's the fact that it's been proven to fall outside their own % of error.

If you look at social media, you have an entirely different picture.

Facebook:

Trump Live Stream Post — August 3rd: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views
Clinton Live Stream Post — August 3rd: 11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views

Zero shares. And funny enough the top posters on Clinton's posts are Trump Supporters, while on Trumps posts, they are 99% Trump Supporters.

Twitter:
Trump: 10.6 million followers
Hillary: 8.1 million followers

We know Obama and Hillary have a bunch of robot accounts, while a study verified that 90% of Trump's followers are actual voters with a voting record.

Youtube Live Streams:

Trump: Averages 30,000 live viewers per stream
Clinton: Averages 500 live viewers per stream

Trump has 5900% more live viewers than Clinton.

The same advantages can be seen on Instagram and Reddit. The Hillary for Prison reddit has 3x the amount of subscribers as the Hillary official reddit, so it's not even close.

The traditional polls might show the accurate look at a subset of a subset of the country, but it's not the full picture. Anyone who decides who to vote based on those is being misled. Polls don't show how many will turn out, which is the biggest factor in the election. Showing bad or good polls is targeted at that goal. This year is different and they're paying attention.

The links you posted show that some polls are still accurate, so that undercuts your entire argument. If you want to cherry pick only the polls that performed poorly, go for it. But some polls have performed well, so making blanket statements about them not being scientific, etc. is just not supported by the facts.

The facts also don't support your assertions regarding social media. First of all, the numbers you posted are simply not accurate. Trump's numbers on Facebook are generally accurate (currently at 1.8M views, 147k likes, 22k shares). But the Hillary post you referenced has 353k views, 19k likes, and 2,437 shares. You're correct that Trump's numbers are much higher, but you made a point of calling out ZERO shares, which is a flat out LIE. Also, Trump's is a post on his website, while Clinton's is from a Colorado specific site. So it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. I don't have time to look into all the other numbers right now. I'll try to check later.

But, I get that your point is that Trump has a much bigger social media following than Clinton. That's true. But there's no good reason to fabricate numbers. All that does is undercut your point.

That said, I have no clue if having a big social media following translates to more votes. This election will help show what, if any, indication social media is of voting patterns. To the best of my knowledge, nobody really knows the answer to that yet.

EDITED TO ADD:

I say all this as someone who doesn't really like Hillary. But I hate misleading statements, and I am a big fan of data & facts. If someone posted something inflating Hillary's numbers or said things that were provably untrue in support of her, I'd call that out as well.


Here's the biggest flag with the polls. Prior to the RNC, polls had her up 15%. Right after the RNC, Trump jumped to up 15%. That's a 30% swing which is a statistical improbability. Then after the DNC, Hillary was up 10%. Another 25% swing, which is another improbability.

Meanwhile, independent big polls with 50k respondents, 1000 in each state, 33% of Dem, Repub and Independent have Trump with 67%.
ABC online polls has Trump at 67%. NBC online poll has Trump at 50%.

I don't trust online polls more, because they have their own problems, but I take that independent poll done by graduate students because it's not a small sample. I take the data and facts seriously too, and things aren't adding up. I would never say the polls are rigged, but there is something wrong with how their collecting that data. It's illegal to robo-call cell phones, so they have to manually call them, which is time consuming, even if only 50% of the sample are cells. And the weighing of stats is problematic. You're assuming the majority of said group will vote with the minority of people you got a response from. Especially in this cycle. Blacks aren't for her as much as they were for Obama. Even republicans aren't for Trump as they were for previous GOP candidates. But you've got a new generation of voters that because they haven't voted before aren't called for polls, and people switching sides that might not fall in the samples. Polls might be a typical indicator, but if this cycle has taught us anything, it's that this isn't a typical election.

Like I've said, turnout is a real indicator and Trump got more votes than any GOP candidate in the primaries ever. Clinton on the other hand got less than she did in '08, and that's comparing a winning vs losing effort. She's getting low turnouts at rallies, and he's filling every location with people waiting outside. In Mass., you saw 20k Dems leave the party. In PA, you saw 40k. Remove the polls from the equation and then see if you can find any evidence that she's winning. It's just not there. At least in 2012, even when the polls showed them even, there was plenty of evidence that Obama would crush Romney. That's not there this year for her. Anger at establishment, the economy and terrorism being the primary indicators of what matters, point in a different direction.


August 15th, 2016, 12:54 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
njroar wrote:
Here's the biggest flag with the polls. Prior to the RNC, polls had her up 15%. Right after the RNC, Trump jumped to up 15%. That's a 30% swing which is a statistical improbability. Then after the DNC, Hillary was up 10%. Another 25% swing, which is another improbability.

Meanwhile, independent big polls with 50k respondents, 1000 in each state, 33% of Dem, Repub and Independent have Trump with 67%.
ABC online polls has Trump at 67%. NBC online poll has Trump at 50%.

I don't trust online polls more, because they have their own problems, but I take that independent poll done by graduate students because it's not a small sample. I take the data and facts seriously too, and things aren't adding up. I would never say the polls are rigged, but there is something wrong with how their collecting that data. It's illegal to robo-call cell phones, so they have to manually call them, which is time consuming, even if only 50% of the sample are cells. And the weighing of stats is problematic. You're assuming the majority of said group will vote with the minority of people you got a response from. Especially in this cycle. Blacks aren't for her as much as they were for Obama. Even republicans aren't for Trump as they were for previous GOP candidates. But you've got a new generation of voters that because they haven't voted before aren't called for polls, and people switching sides that might not fall in the samples. Polls might be a typical indicator, but if this cycle has taught us anything, it's that this isn't a typical election.

Like I've said, turnout is a real indicator and Trump got more votes than any GOP candidate in the primaries ever. Clinton on the other hand got less than she did in '08, and that's comparing a winning vs losing effort. She's getting low turnouts at rallies, and he's filling every location with people waiting outside. In Mass., you saw 20k Dems leave the party. In PA, you saw 40k. Remove the polls from the equation and then see if you can find any evidence that she's winning. It's just not there. At least in 2012, even when the polls showed them even, there was plenty of evidence that Obama would crush Romney. That's not there this year for her. Anger at establishment, the economy and terrorism being the primary indicators of what matters, point in a different direction.

Which polls showed her up 15 prior to the RNC? On realclearpolitics, they track the history of a whole bunch of polls. Here's the polling going back to the beginning of July (RNC was July 18-21):
Image
As you can see none of the polls had Clinton up 15 leading up to the RNC. The highest was Reuters/Ipsos which had her +11. Then after the RNC that poll dropped to Clinton +4/+5. So again, unless I'm missing something the facts don't support what you're saying.

As for the rest: if I were you I wouldn't be referencing the black vote. Trump is polling historically poorly with black voters (2%), so even if they don't support Hillary as strongly as Obama, she's still going to get almost all of the black vote. The other stuff is all speculative. I suppose this all is though :)

One last note: Trump did get the most votes for him in history. He also got the most votes against him as well. So I'm not sure if that's a record to brag about. Maybe it is. I don't know.

Anyway, I'm most interested to hear what polls you think made an unconventional swing, because I can't find it.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


August 15th, 2016, 1:37 pm
Profile
Online
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3241
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
I was looking at State polling, which i'll have to go look back through when I have time.

And of course it's all speculative. As long as it's done in good faith and without attacking each other, it's never an issue with me :) We all see things differently.

She could get 99% but if only 30% turn out, that's 99% of less which won't help her. And that 2% number is where weighing really is skewed. If you only call a few and get a certain result, then weigh it to equal the 12%, you're assuming too much. There's a lot of black Trump supporters that are standing up and plenty more that are staying in the shadows because their sick of being called Uncle Toms because any member of the black, latino or gay communities that bites the hand that feeds them are called out. Latinos support Trump in higher numbers than polls indicate and I know that number is much higher for blacks than 2%. It's one of my issues with polling, is that people are more reluctant to answer, which makes the information not really showing the full picture. I think exit polling is going to surprise people in November. Much like people were surprised in 2012 that evangelicals didn't turn out for a Mormon.


August 15th, 2016, 2:22 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
njroar wrote:
I was looking at State polling, which i'll have to go look back through when I have time.

And of course it's all speculative. As long as it's done in good faith and without attacking each other, it's never an issue with me :) We all see things differently.

She could get 99% but if only 30% turn out, that's 99% of less which won't help her. And that 2% number is where weighing really is skewed. If you only call a few and get a certain result, then weigh it to equal the 12%, you're assuming too much. There's a lot of black Trump supporters that are standing up and plenty more that are staying in the shadows because their sick of being called Uncle Toms because any member of the black, latino or gay communities that bites the hand that feeds them are called out. Latinos support Trump in higher numbers than polls indicate and I know that number is much higher for blacks than 2%. It's one of my issues with polling, is that people are more reluctant to answer, which makes the information not really showing the full picture. I think exit polling is going to surprise people in November. Much like people were surprised in 2012 that evangelicals didn't turn out for a Mormon.

We shall see. My guess is that Trump is going to lose in a huge landslide. I actually wouldn't be surprised at all if he can't handle being behind, freaks out, and tells his supporters to note vote because it's "rigged". The proverbial "take my ball and go home" strategy. I don't think that will happen, but it wouldn't surprise me.

But then again, I've been wrong about most things so far this election, so what do I know... dontknow.gif

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


August 15th, 2016, 2:36 pm
Profile
William Clay Ford Sr.
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 8983
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/25/gar ... candidate/


August 29th, 2016, 11:13 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2578
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
If you could use any candidate in history's direction on a single issue as confirmation of their entire political outlook and future plans then every candidate we've ever had was simultaneously a liberal and a conservative. This is their take on a single issue, and nothing more.


August 29th, 2016, 11:43 am
Profile ICQ WWW
William Clay Ford Sr.
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 8983
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
DJ-B wrote:
If you could use any candidate in history's direction on a single issue as confirmation of their entire political outlook and future plans then every candidate we've ever had was simultaneously a liberal and a conservative. This is their take on a single issue, and nothing more.


The writer might only be looking at this one issue. But, this is just one more Libtard choice on top of all the other Libtard choices he supports.


August 29th, 2016, 11:51 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.