MLW poll for the 1st Presidential debate

[msj]

I'm well aware of how VPNs work. I have a couple of them. The vast majority of computer users have no idea how to use them or how they work. Or even how to delete their cookies.

I think this is the point.

Since only a few know how to do it, it is only the few who write the script to vote thousands of times for whatever reason they think it is worth their time to do it for (obviously they place a low value on their time).

[Argus]

Perhaps because Clinton provided clear answers and Trump didn`t.

He can't help that. His plans are 'secret' so that ISIS won't find out... or uh, the economy. We can't have the economy finding out his plans ahead of time, after all.

[betsy]

"Unscientific non-traditional online" means biased and irrelevant.

You're describing biased media, too!

At least the polls I gave aren't masquerading as something "scientific."

Edited September 29, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I didn't click on the ad, but I imagine that if you did you were taken to a Trump campaign donation site rather than an online poll.

-k

You're speculating.

Edited September 29, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

You're speculating.

So?

[kimmy]

You're speculating.

Sure. But these banner ads were paid for by the Trump campaign, and when campaigns put ads on websites it's almost always to ask for donations.

I get 3 emails a day from the RNC and/or College Republicans asking for donations. It's a thing political parties do. They solicit donations.

-k

[kimmy]

Trump supporters were expecting Hillary to show signs of medical distress, or have coughing fits, or pass out. Or start crying in the face of Manly-Man's swaggering style. They had really talked themselves into believing that she was on death's door... and that the debate would show everybody how sick she was. It didn't happen, so I'm assuming Trump boosters must be pretty disappointed overall.

-k

[Smoke]

I'll bet the only reason she had energy was because of all the coke she snorted before the debate.

[Bryan]

Everyone did not have the same opportunity.

Yes they did.

[cybercoma]

Yes they did.

As you go on to ignore the numerous examples I gave about the selection bias. It's not so much that you don't know what you're talking about that bothers me, it's that you're completely unwilling to understand why you're wrong.

[DogOnPorch]

As you go on to ignore the numerous examples I gave about the selection bias. It's not so much that you don't know what you're talking about that bothers me, it's that you're completely unwilling to understand why you're wrong.

If Hillary is going to win hands-down...what's the problem?

Let the Trumpzillas have their moment...Hillary will easily win seeing the polls and this will all be an unpleasant memory.

Correct?

[cybercoma]

Do you have stocks in straw? I swear, it's like you can't even post anymore without making up some ridiculous bs in your head and attributing it to people. Where was I talking about Hillary? I was talking about selection bias in online polling. If you're incapable of addressing what people are actually saying then maybe you should stop hitting that "post" button so often.

[DogOnPorch]

Do you have stocks in straw? I swear, it's like you can't even post anymore without making up some ridiculous bs in your head and attributing it to people. Where was I talking about Hillary? I was talking about selection bias in online polling. If you're incapable of addressing what people are actually saying then maybe you should stop hitting that "post" button so often.

Struck a nerve, eh?

Well...is she going to win seeing the polls which support her say 'yes'?

How much confidence do you have?

Not much....

[cybercoma]

I'm annoyed by you constantly burning strawmen and thinking you're brilliant for it. Yes. Regardless of who these kinds of polls support, they are not statistically valid. That was my point and you're asking me to psychically predict where the US electorate will be on Election Day. I'm not even sure you understand that the statistically valid polls are literally only valid for a specific moment in time and that people's intentions change. Did you strike a nerve? No. I'm annoyed with you constantly jumping into conversations and claiming I'm arguing something that I'm not. Especially because you're not a god damned moron, so I have to believe you're doing it intentionally to be a nuisance..

[DogOnPorch]

I'm annoyed by you constantly burning strawmen and thinking you're brilliant for it. Yes. Regardless of who these kinds of polls support, they are not statistically valid. That was my point and you're asking me to psychically predict where the US electorate will be on Election Day. I'm not even sure you understand that the statistically valid polls are literally only valid for a specific moment in time and that people's intentions change. Did you strike a nerve? No. I'm annoyed with you constantly jumping into conversations and claiming I'm arguing something that I'm not. Especially because you're not a god damned moron, so I have to believe you're doing it intentionally to be a nuisance..

Like BC, my 'function' here is to question and 'mock' the posts made. I often get the better of you. I know it bugs you.

[kimmy]

Yes they did.

A poll is only as valid as its sample selection.

Online polls are kind of a joke, because they're easily manipulated. Well-known examples include Rory Fitzpatrick and John Scott getting named to the NHL all-star game, a pro wrestler getting voted Time Man of the Year. The 4chan message board has a long history of this, and were at it again in the online debate polls.

4chan, the notorious message board, has a long history of botting online competitions. In 2009, users flooded the Time 100 poll to ensure that the site’s founder, Christopher “moot” Poole, made the cut. In 2012, the pranksters employed JavaScript to vote for North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Time’s annual Person of the Year poll and followed suit the next year with Miley Cyrus and Edward Snowden. 4chan also ensured a school for the deaf won a Taylor Swift concert. Likewise, a Twitter prankster helped send Pitbull to Kodiak, Alaska, as part of an online challenge by Walmart in 2012.

In regard to the post debate polls:

In this latest incarnation, multiple Reddit users enlisted the Trump-supporting masses on r/The_Donald, which has over 200,000 subscribers, by posting dozens of online polls that are vulnerable to vote brigading, bots, and other forms of manipulation that make these non-scientific surveys notoriously unreliable. On 4chan's /pol/ board, users similarly shared links to active polls along with instructions for how to maximize their impact on the results.

You're certainly free to believe those polls if you wish, but given the hilarious history of online polls and the fact that pro-Trump groups made a concerted effort to game these polls after the debate I'd suggest that skepticism might be warranted.

The first real polls following the debate seem to be showing that Hillary has regained the lead over Trump. That's probably more indicative of who really won the debate.

-k

[DogOnPorch]

Election Day will tell the tale in the US....etc.

However, the polls are not matching what I'm seeing re: rally attendance. Perhaps Hillary supporters are less into getting out there and attending rallies.

[kimmy]

Election Day will tell the tale in the US....etc.

However, the polls are not matching what I'm seeing re: rally attendance. Perhaps Hillary supporters are less into getting out there and attending rallies.

Why would you assume the enthusiasm of the relatively tiny portion of the populace that attends rallies in person would make any sort of statement about the voting preference about the large portion of the populace that doesn't?

-k

[DogOnPorch]

Why would you assume the enthusiasm of the relatively tiny portion of the populace that attends rallies in person would make any sort of statement about the voting preference about the large portion of the populace that doesn't?

-k

It's a sample like any other...poll.

[cybercoma]

You have absolutely no idea how sampling works. That much is clear. What's a random sample? What's a convenience sample? What's a cluster sample? How do they change the outcomes of polls? How do pollsters control for sampling bias?

Seriously. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Edited September 30, 2016 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

You have absolutely no idea how sampling works. That much is clear. What's a random sample? What's a convenience sample? What's a cluster sample? How do they change the outcomes of polls? How do pollsters control for sampling bias?

Seriously. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

LOL...we'll see, eh?

Hillary rally yesterday...a few hundred,

Trump rally yesterday...thousands.

The Democrats must have it all in the bag seeing they see no need to actually come-out and see her in person.

[cybercoma]

I'll take that as confirmation that you have zero understanding of polling, since this has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. Never once did I bring that up.

[DogOnPorch]

I'll take that as confirmation that you have zero understanding of polling, since this has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. Never once did I bring that up.

Well la-dee-da.

Attendance at rallies is an excellent sample of support.

[cybercoma]

Well la-dee-da.

Attendance at rallies is an excellent sample of support.

No it's not. The sample isn't random and it certainly doesn't represent the entirety of eligible voters. It's especially irrelevant when you consider that the candidate is a national celebrity and also that there are people at the rallies who aren't voting for him either. It becomes even more irrelevant when you consider how staged and controlled the access to rallies is. There are tons of reasons rally attendance is not representative or generalizable to the entire voting population and that's true for either candidate. Hell, Bernie Sanders was crushing Hillary with rally attendance. He didn't even get nominated amongst party voters, who are more likely to attend rallies in the first place. You simply don't understand sampling bias. Period.

Also, who the hell was talking about rally attendance? You jumped into a conversation I was having with Bryan about online polling. Now you're talking about rally attendance.

[DogOnPorch]

No it's not. The sample isn't random and it certainly doesn't represent the entirety of eligible voters. It's especially irrelevant when you consider that the candidate is a national celebrity and also that there are people at the rallies who aren't voting for him either. It becomes even more irrelevant when you consider how staged and controlled the access to rallies is. There are tons of reasons rally attendance is not representative or generalizable to the entire voting population and that's true for either candidate. Hell, Bernie Sanders was crushing Hillary with rally attendance. He didn't even get nominated amongst party voters, who are more likely to attend rallies in the first place. You simply don't understand sampling bias. Period.

Also, who the hell was talking about rally attendance? You jumped into a conversation I was having with Bryan about online polling. Now you're talking about rally attendance.

Yes, I am. I didn't realize this was your private thread.