mrussel1 said:

JW269453 said:

mrussel1 said:

JW269453 said:

mrussel1 said:

JW269453 said:

mrussel1 said:

JW269453 said:

mrussel1 said:

JW269453 said:

mrussel1 said:

JW269453 said:

mrussel1 said:

JW269453 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JW269453 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JW269453 said:

darwinstheory said:

The Juggler said:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN239347?__twitter_impression=true 

Looks like the old law and order fake tough guy stuff ain’t working anymore. 55% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the protests. 

-

So 45% approve of his "handling of the protests? The fuck???

What we know is 55% of the 1,004 people they asked disapprove. I get polls, but I don’t put a whole lot of stock into something that is assuming the feelings of the other 329,735,410 people that call this country home. Maybe it is just me but .00000304% of anything is a little too small of a sample size to run with. This is real life for those in areas where protests have turned nasty, but only a TV show for the others. One of those opinions holds a little more weight for me when it comes to the approval of how this is being handled.

329 million + Americans don’t vote nor are they all eligible to do so. Keep clinging.

Clinging? You’re right. I forgot some people think the opinions of non voters and minors don’t matter. Let’s just use the voters opinions only as a gauge then. The 2016 voter turnout was 138,847,000. We are now assuming the opinions of the other 138,845,996 elites. Does this new .00000723% move your meter that much? 

 Other’s opinions don’t get to pull the lever though do they? So, extrapolating as you did is flawed. You’re from Texas, right? Fuzzy math, I get it. Keep clinging.

Morning sunshine! A poll is the perfect example of extrapolating, it is just one you choose to except. I am sorry my residence brings out your prejudice, it must be difficult trying to harbor all of those feelings. Forgive me for not moving the decimal while trying to remember such a ridiculous percentage, .000723 it makes such a difference in this instance doesn't it?

Do you think statistics has a liberal bias or something?  There's no mathematical question that the sample size used is predictive.  In corporations, they generally use a 95/5/5 interval, so this appears to be 95/2/3 which is very precise.  The only squirlley part for any of these is how the participants define themselves politically, and therefore how you break down the demos.  

As per usual, I'm confused as to why my comment was seen as pro trump or anti liberal. It is simple, I do not put much stock in something that can be viewed completely different depending on your situation. Most of us have never witnessed what is going on right now to this extent so assuming the approval or disapproval of literally everyone seems like buzzfeed quiz level nonsense. Then again I'm the one who doesn't have an agenda to fulfill so I take these things with a grain of salt while others shout from the rooftops.

Polling, when done correctly by pros, is absolutely indicative of the larger population.  So there's no reason to believe that his approval is actually 65% when the poll says 45%, as an example.  Now I'm guessing the MOE is about 3-4%, so that means approval ranges from from 41-49% essentially.  Unless you're arguing the questions were unclear or leading... 

Who did they poll? People who were watching their neighborhoods get destroyed, people who only dealt with peaceful protests, or people who have watched everything unfold from a place that is unaffected. In this specific situation, if the sample size does not include all 3 scenarios I would be leery of this being an accurate representation.

Why would you do such a poll?  The poll was testing Trump's approval rating in his handling of the issue.  The issue affects all Americans, and it's tangentially connected to voting down the road.  That's why these polls are commissioned.  

I don't know, maybe because a person who lives in downtown Minneapolis probably views this slightly different than someone in the middle of nowhere. Who participates in a poll greatly affects the outcome, are you denying this? It is my opinion that to get the most accurate representation you would need to make sure you are covering the spectrum. This issue does affect all Americans, but the level of affect it has on them is vastly different. Like I said, I take these things with a grain of salt. There are actually people who look at this as being a societal issue not just a political one.

Of course they might, but you're not testing how a Minneapolis native feels about it, you're testing the nation as a whole.  Selecting sub groups and then extrapolating that would actually skew the whole poll. If you only polled AA urban men, the results would be highly skewed to the negative, completely corrupting your poll.  Instead, they target the polling and then control the results based on that demographics representation of the population as a whole.  An easy example is D, R, and I.  You may over sample D's, but then you control the results in order to have it match the base assumption (party registration).  That's why polls like Rasmussen are often criticized; because they have the R representation higher than the registration numbers, making it favorable to R's.  

And to your last point, the LEVEL of the effect is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if it affects me or you worse.  We each represent one opinion, and presumably one vote.  The poll isn't to determine how well Trump is doing.. it's to determine how well Trump is PERCEIVED to be doing.  Big difference. 

This is precisely my point. Unless I know who was polled, I do not run with the results. Guarantee that the 1,004 people who were polled cover the spectrum and I am on board. 

I think you're missing my point completely.  If they sampled 3 people living in MSP, that's meaningless because that sample is too small to be representative.  If you want to know how MSP residents feel about Trump's response, you would have to poll 1004 people in the metro area.  

3 is too small of a sample size for MSP, but 1,004 is just right to represent the US as a whole...got it. 

Dude... seriously... this is basic statistics here.  Here's an easy guide for you.  This is a handy tool.  I think it defaults to 95/5, but you can change that to 95/3 (margin of error) and it will mirror polling.  Now for the population size, start with a million people.  Then change that to 125 million (about how many voted).  You will see the number does not move.  Once you get above a certain population size, the increase is sample is pretty small.  

http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

I said I get polling in my original post, I am not arguing against how we poll. This is a unique situation, one that most of us did not have a prior opinion on because it is something we have not seen and the individual affect is different than with most issues. I feel this is not the same as an opinion that has been formed over a lifetime, I know my opinion has changed over the last week as the picture has become clearer. I am sure others have as well.

Most of us didn't have an opinion on police brutality?  Are we talking about the same thing at this point?  I think every issue affects different Americans in a disparate way.  As a 47 year old man, abortion doesn't directly affect me, nor does this particular issue, but I still have an opinion and still vote.  Same with Immigration, student loans, healthcare, etc.  They all have varying effects. 

mrussel1 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

static111 said:

I posted this in the Biden v trump thread , and I think it bears repeating here.

If people can go out to protest they can stand in line to vote.   I’m saying this as someone that has been out at the peaceful  protests off and on in the last days.   When people start throwing shit and outside agitators start trying to get people to antagonize the cops Or set shit on fire  that’s when I bow out.  If we are feeling this strongly to risk our health and gather in large groups in support of Black Lives we can absolutely show up to the polls especially in states with early voting.  If they try to vilify and cast doubt on absentee ballots people have to be willing to take the risk to go to a polling place and cast a vote that will be less easy to challenge.  Some things are important enough to go out even with the threat of corona.  If you can go to get groceries, pickup take out food, you can go to the damn poll and help those that can’t get there.

But not everyone is going out to protest so.....those that are at home have to suck it up and go to the voting booths Covid be damned?

Exactly.  I don't buy this logic at all.  Static doesn't get to make my choice for me, as an example.  

ikiT said:

static111 said:

I posted this in the Biden v trump thread , and I think it bears repeating here.

If people can go out to protest they can stand in line to vote.   I’m saying this as someone that has been out at the peaceful  protests off and on in the last days.   When people start throwing shit and outside agitators start trying to get people to antagonize the cops Or set shit on fire  that’s when I bow out.  If we are feeling this strongly to risk our health and gather in large groups in support of Black Lives we can absolutely show up to the polls especially in states with early voting.  If they try to vilify and cast doubt on absentee ballots people have to be willing to take the risk to go to a polling place and cast a vote that will be less easy to challenge.  Some things are important enough to go out even with the threat of corona.  If you can go to get groceries, pickup take out food, you can go to the damn poll and help those that can’t get there.

Mail in your votes. I just did it in MD. It's hella easy.  MAIL

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

static111 said:

I posted this in the Biden v trump thread , and I think it bears repeating here.

If people can go out to protest they can stand in line to vote.   I’m saying this as someone that has been out at the peaceful  protests off and on in the last days.   When people start throwing shit and outside agitators start trying to get people to antagonize the cops Or set shit on fire  that’s when I bow out.  If we are feeling this strongly to risk our health and gather in large groups in support of Black Lives we can absolutely show up to the polls especially in states with early voting.  If they try to vilify and cast doubt on absentee ballots people have to be willing to take the risk to go to a polling place and cast a vote that will be less easy to challenge.  Some things are important enough to go out even with the threat of corona.  If you can go to get groceries, pickup take out food, you can go to the damn poll and help those that can’t get there.

But not everyone is going out to protest so.....those that are at home have to suck it up and go to the voting booths Covid be damned?

Exactly.  I don't buy this logic at all.  Static doesn't get to make my choice for me, as an example.  

So being that you are one of the more fervent anti trumpets on the board you would rather cast a mail in ballot that could be contested , than go out and take not much more risk than a grocery shop and cast an actual ballot in person?

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

static111 said:

I posted this in the Biden v trump thread , and I think it bears repeating here.

If people can go out to protest they can stand in line to vote.   I’m saying this as someone that has been out at the peaceful  protests off and on in the last days.   When people start throwing shit and outside agitators start trying to get people to antagonize the cops Or set shit on fire  that’s when I bow out.  If we are feeling this strongly to risk our health and gather in large groups in support of Black Lives we can absolutely show up to the polls especially in states with early voting.  If they try to vilify and cast doubt on absentee ballots people have to be willing to take the risk to go to a polling place and cast a vote that will be less easy to challenge.  Some things are important enough to go out even with the threat of corona.  If you can go to get groceries, pickup take out food, you can go to the damn poll and help those that can’t get there.

But not everyone is going out to protest so.....those that are at home have to suck it up and go to the voting booths Covid be damned?

Exactly.  I don't buy this logic at all.  Static doesn't get to make my choice for me, as an example.  

So being that you are one of the more fervent anti trumpets on the board you would rather cast a mail in ballot that could be contested , than go out and take not much more risk than a grocery shop and cast an actual ballot in person?

I worry about my elderly mother who is in a nursing home in Cleveland.  She hasn't had a meal with a person in three months and they get to go outside their room a few times per week.  Going out and voting could be a death sentence for her.  Likewise, if my sister (who is her local caretaker) gets infected, she could pass it to my mother.  It's not about my fervency.  

That sucks man.  I really feel for u being in that situation.  The original point is if you are able bodied get to the actual poll and cast a ballot that is less likely to be rejected. Quarantine for 14 days if you have to.  I don’t know what to do.  But I agree that the election has to be a wide Indisputable  margin of victory. 

I listened to Rush Limbaugh today for a bit.  The fact that the other side doubles down so much on the love of their king has  me very worried

RunIntoTheRain said:

James Mattis former Secretary of Defense

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/james-mattis-denounces-president-trump-describes-him-as-a-threat-to-the-constitution/ar-BB14ZPey?li=BBnb7Kz

This is encouraging to me that more people are coming out and denouncing Trump.

This part really says it all:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

RunIntoTheRain said:

James Mattis former Secretary of Defense

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/james-mattis-denounces-president-trump-describes-him-as-a-threat-to-the-constitution/ar-BB14ZPey?li=BBnb7Kz

This is encouraging to me that more people are coming out and denouncing Trump.

This part really says it all:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”