They may have gotten that poll wrong. So what? Stuff happens. How does that prove that they did it intentionally, which is your assertion?
Trump puts it DOWN. GTFO and get in line like the rest. Criminals and Welfare Leeches = GONE
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
They may have gotten that poll wrong. So what? Stuff happens. How does that prove that they did it intentionally, which is your assertion?
My assertion is that the polls from both right-wing and left-wing "policy institutes" are biased to support the politics they are supporting. They do this by a number of methods - the wording of their questions/answers, the selection of the respondents, and the subjects of their polls. Civitas is well known in our state for putting out polls to support positions they are lobbying for in the state legislature. For example, Civitas was paid to lobby in support of fracking and put out a bunch of polls showing 84% of the people in our state supported fracking (which is way off). They did this by wording their questions along the lines where they people responding did not know they were supporting fracking but though they were generally supporting the idea that oil & gas should be used for fuel in your home & cars.
Well my assertion is that the so called 'credible' polling firms you rely on are just as much bullshit. My proof?
Here's a Silver article doing statistical studies proving it.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
The so called credible pollsters have been shown to put their thumbs on the scales, as Silver put it, and try to get in line with the conventional wisdom.
The conclusion paragraph that he has explained in detail in the article:
"So my message for fellow polling geeks is as follows: Let’s not give pollsters so much grief the next time they publish what looks to be an “outlier.” Polling data is noisy and polling is becoming more challenging. The occasional or even not-so-occasional result that deviates from the consensus is sometimes a sign the pollster is doing good, honest work and trusting its data. It’s the inliers — the polls that always stay implausibly close to the consensus and always conform to the conventional wisdom about a race — that deserve more scrutiny instead."
I can agree with you that there are very few fully credible polling firms. It is just degrees of credibility. Nate Silver's basic approach is correct, evaluate a firms credibility based on their past results (and bias) and then weigh their value in the current polls based on their previous history.
My primary issue is with polls from political think tanks which are paid to lobby for particular positions on issues and then create the majority of their polls to support the positions they are lobbying for. Civitas is an example of this problem.
These are all policies that shouldn't need to be fixed.... policies we never should have had in the 1st place.
SMH
You CLAIM that you have a problem with polling firms that are on one side of the political divide, yet in post 43 above, which began this discussion, you said:
"In the latest PPP poll in our state Trump is only polling with 3% of the black vote."
But in this article, it says Civitas is a republican firm and PPP is a democratic firm.
http://www.wral.com/polling-results...n-conclusions-on-education-spending/13693781/
So really you're fine with quoting pollsters who work for democrats, it's just the republican ones that get your goat.
That is true. However PPP does no paid lobbying. Also as outlined in your first posted article their polling techniques are very different than Civitas and much less likely to be biased. Also PPP has a long record of being one of the most accurate polling firms in our state with polls with a large number of respondents that are statistically reliable.
Are you still sticking by your assertion that 30% of black voters in North Carolina are going to vote for Trump?
Last edited:
Let's quote your article to demonstrate how extremely biased Civitas is on key issues in North Carolina. Remember that Civitas is paid to lobby in support of giving state money to private schools -
-------------------------------------------------------------
Is ideology influencing polling about teacher pay?
Let’s start with Civitas, an ideologically conservative organization that uses National Research Inc. to conduct some of its polls. Civitas issued a news release claiming that two of their polls, one from March of this year and another from March 2013 "show North Carolina voters support alternatives to the tenure system that pay larger raises to the best teachers."
Yet, when I found the survey and looked at all of the questions that were included, it was clear Civitas had cherry-picked a few questions with questionable wording and placement to reach that conclusion. For example, Civitas asked many other questions that undercut their press release. For one, respondents were asked if they thought teacher pay was too high, too low or about right. Just 2 percent said too high, and 79 percent said too low. Respondents were also asked whether North Carolina spent too much, too little or the right amount on public education, and 71 percent said not enough.
Nor did Civitas mention that they also asked respondents if they supported a new teacher pay increase to $35,000, noting this amounted to a 14 percent raise. Supporters of this pay increase outnumbered opponents, 74 percent to 21 percent. This result indicates an overwhelming majority support an unconditional pay raise for teachers.
In their very next question, Civitas introduced information about tenure as they asked people if they supported or opposed it. Although the balance of reactions was even – 45 percent supported and 45 percent opposed – I am opposed to feeding respondents information about a topic while they are being asked how they feel about it. In general, surveys should avoid giving respondents information because it helps them to answer it, even if they are uninformed, uninterested and did not hold any prior opinion to be measured.
Giving respondents information means the choice of what information to include or exclude and can dramatically shape responses not just on that question but also to subsequent questions on the same topic. Question order can also influence respondent answers. For example, a 2003 Pew survey found varying degrees of support for gay marriage depending on which questions were asked and in what order.
As it turns out, the next question inquired about raises coupled with ending tenure, although it wasn’t identical to legislation just approved by the Senate. Civitas asked, "A change in the state law requires local school systems to end tenure and offer the top performing 25 percent of the system’s teachers four-year contracts with a guaranteed pay raise each year of the contract. Do you support or oppose this new system of improving teacher quality and increasing the salaries for the best teachers?"
That wording is not neutral. It encourages affirmative responses. First, it is hard for people who already said they approve of pay raises for all teachers to turn around and oppose pay raises for the "best teachers." Likewise, it is difficult to oppose a system that is said to improve teacher quality, even though that is a claim made by advocates of the policy and not an objective fact. Unsurprisingly, 64 percent supported the plan, while 29 percent were opposed.
So, what should we believe? The simple answer is that North Carolinians support pay raises for teachers, and their support does not depend on ending tenure.
After that, it is hard to say anything else because I’m concerned that question wording and question order influenced the attitudes measured about the idea of pay raises coupled with ending tenure. The ideal survey question would directly pose these options to respondents and have them choose whether pay raises should be dependent on ending tenure or be independent of that policy. Oddly, nobody has asked this.
Hillary fanboys can cry all day long - Trump is basically tied with Hillary now in the polls.
That's impossible with the lack of minority support democratic pollsters *claim* exists for trump
Also, why do our resident commies make up accusations then abandon them a week later after being proved wrong ?
Two weeks ago the media meme was trump waffles on immigration. No deportations! trumps gone soft!!
Has he? No. Did he walk back shit? No. Was there any evidence trump planned to walk back anything ? No
Just more liberal media talking points the morons on here repeat like children because they literally can't think for themselves.
So did any of our lying liberals apologize. Offer a retraction? Admit they were wrong ? Of course not. Because liberals are intellectually dishonest as a course of business. They never admit fault or wrong because deep down , they are immoral sacks of shit with no honor
Look at spike trader. Cnn has convinced that moron this is all just a grande publicity stunt for trump ties...... Okay. Any adults In the room. Don't see many
That's impossible with the lack of minority support democratic pollsters *claim* exists for trump
Also, why do our resident commies make up accusations then abandon them a week later after being proved wrong ?
Two weeks ago the media meme was trump waffles on immigration. No deportations! trumps gone soft!!
Has he? No. Did he walk back shit? No. Was there any evidence trump planned to walk back anything ? No
Just more liberal media talking points the morons on here repeat like children because they literally can't think for themselves.
So did any of our lying liberals apologize. Offer a retraction? Admit they were wrong ? Of course not. Because liberals are intellectually dishonest as a course of business. They never admit fault or wrong because deep down , they are immoral sacks of shit with no honor
Look at spike trader. Cnn has convinced that moron this is all just a grande publicity stunt for trump ties...... Okay. Any adults In the room. Don't see many
Last edited: