Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jul 24, 2020.
A word is not an argument.
No argument presented.
RCP POLL AVERAGE
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden
Biden (D) 48%
Trump (R) 43%
I got 3:1 odds that says @gfm7175 is about to argue that his personal anecdotal experience is more valuable and predictive than the average from polling data conducted by actually relevant and known experts.
And then he is going to quote my post and cite a couple of his mantras instead of actually addressing why personal anecdotal evidence is somehow more valuable or predictive than rigorous analysis of state specific polling data.
I'd call it a safe bet.
Oh, so Biden is only up 5 points now?? It used to be 6, and used to be 8 before that...
Anyway, polls are absolutely meaningless. They deny statistical mathematics. I've driven around much of South and Central Wisconsin and I can tell you that (outside of Dane and Milwaukee Counties) there are Trump signs, Trump flags, and American flags all over the place (only a few Biden signs here and there). Much of Wisconsin loves Trump. Trump will likely carry Wisconsin once again no matter what the propaganda polls say...
Yup, you got that right! And my personal anecdotal experience IS more accurate than phony propaganda polls that deny statistical mathematics.
Sort of right... I'm not gonna bother listing all of your mantras this time around, but I've already addressed why polling is meaningless and how it denies statistical mathematics. RQAA (Mantra 29). Oh wow, I guess I had one in me yet...
This **** is just too easy @gfm7175 . When you are this predictable, your arguments are pathetic.
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin...
Biden solidifies lead on Trump in Wisconsin: Poll
It was like that in the science forum. Instead of arguing evidence he just bangs the table.
Biden will not beat Trump by 9 points in Wisconsin...
Another meaningless propaganda poll... summarily dismissed.
I specifically laid out my arguments in the science forum. I specifically explained why I took the positions that I did. You ignored my argumentation and kept spouting off your religious beliefs...MrTLegal is no different.
@gfm7175 thinks that "summarily dismissing" brand new polling data is a viable debate tactic.
Really quite pathetic.
I will summarily dismiss anything that outright denies the rules of statistical mathematics.
But if you read the internals of these polls...
@gfm7175 does not know, nor can he elucidate the "rules of statistical mathematics," let alone could he possibly apply that argument to why all polls are a denial of those "rules."
What argumentation ?
Instead of debating evidence you consistently attempted to equate science with religion. All you did was make noise.
Then again science illiterates are known to habitually opine on subjects they know little if anything about.
I already have done so.
Polls do not declare nor justify a variance. Statistical Mathematics requires this for any statistical summary. They also do not remove biasing influences before collecting data. The questions are usually not posted for people to see, and when they are, they are typically vague questions which can be interpreted numerous different ways or questions that are purposely worded to lead people to answer in a certain way. The margin of error is not calculated from the variance (since the variance wasn't declared/justified to begin with), thus the margin of error that you see on polls doesn't mean much of anything. Also, raw data must be used, and that data must be selected by randN and normalized by paired randR.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... that is what YOU did........ I was the one trying to explain to you precisely how science differs from religion, and explaining the logical framework behind both of them.
President Dukakis had quite the lead this time in the election year when he was defeating that Bush guy too.
Rely on whatever tea leaves favor your bias I guess. Personally, no idea who I will vote for I don't like either.
You continuously failed to address evidence for subjects in the science forum; I see it as confirmation that science is not your forte.
"Declare or justify a variance" is not a rule of statistics and is, in fact, pure bullshit.
But @gfm7175 won't even pretend to make the effort to provide a single citation or source to back up the utter dogshit that is the argument that polls must "declare or justify a variance."
Perhaps it's a trait of blind partisan know-it-all's.
No, it is a rule of statistics.
A variance is simply the range that the data may be found in. It does not come from the data itself, but from outside the data. If temperatures can vary by as much as 20degF/mile [declared variance, justified by personal experience], and only 7,500 thermometers are being used to measure the "global temperature", that means that each thermometer [IF uniformly spaced] is covering about ~26,000 sq miles of surface area.
When temperatures can vary by as much as 20degF/mile, let alone 26,000 of them, it is obvious that the "global temperature" is just a pure guess, using the maximum margin of error of +/- 131degF
Separate names with a comma.