User Panel
Posted: 10/17/2008 11:36:09 AM EDT
I've already stated my case on why I believe that ACORN's fraudulent registrations are not going to translate to many fraudulent votes but that is a discussion for another thread.
This question is only for all of those of you who mention ACORN as the reason when they see McCain trailing in the battleground state polls. I do not understand how the fraudulent registrations could possibly be effecting the polls. Are you guys picturing an ACORN call center that is set up and manned strictly for the purpose of answering "Obama" when pollsters call? I live in a battleground state and I have never received a polling call. The cost of setting up many phone lines and manning them for the sole purpose of skewing a poll by 1% would seem to me to be an outrageous thing to do. Please help me understand |
|
I really do not give a crap about polls, I do give a big huge stinking pile about an election being fair.
If elections where based on polls, then a republican would never win and a few thousand people would decide who runs our country. If you do not care about fraud whether it helps your party or not, then I pity you. |
|
Got beat up in the other thread so you run to a new one huh...
I believe what you are doing is called spamming the board. |
|
As much as I'll get shitted on for trolling, I honestly wonder the same thing. How are invalid registrants going to have any significant impact on actual voters?
Oh, and FUCK OBAMA |
|
It didn't compute with his liberal mindset. He won't be satisfied until he receives the asnwer that fits with his liberal outlook on life. |
|
|
No. Can you read? This is specially concerning those who are saying that the polls are skewed because of ACORN. |
|
|
I clearly care about fraud. I think it is disgusting and hurts the nation. Read my other thread. |
|
|
This guy seems to have no problem with fraud. Why does he keep throwing the same pitch to a conservative web site that's not going to give him the affirmation he seems to desperately need?
|
|
I'm sure you care about fraud-from the McCain campaign if you could find it. |
||
|
I have a huge problem with fraud, however that is not answering my question regarding polling. |
|
|
I don;t know how many ways I can say it. Fraud = Bad That does not answer my question about how is skews polls. |
|||
|
in some areas it is possible to register then immediately file absentee ballot w/no real controls.
i have no doubt that helping people vote twice or more is seen by many of these people as completely justified. |
|
I get that. What I don't get is how that skews polls. |
|
|
No, but we can ignore him. DON'T FEED THE TROLL |
|
|
If fraud=bad, then ACORN=bad, and Barry=bad because they support Barry and Barry gave them $800,000 to throw the election. Next topic. |
||||
|
By the way this is the best troll picture yet. You should get a prize. |
|
|
Polls weight their results according to percentages of democrats and republicans registered.
ACORN's false democrat registrations make it appear that more dems are registered than actually are. Therefore, the polls are more heavily weighted toward dems, thus skewing results. |
|
Personally, at this point I believe that polling data is being flat-out fabricated. The "undecided" and plain old dumbass who has not made up his mind yet is easily influenced by what the rest of the herd is doing. |
|
|
Even though you're a fucking troll, this isn't that hard. When they do polls, they "adjust" the results to make sure their sample is adjusted to what they believe will be voter turn out. One of the tools they use to make these adjustments is called "voter identification" One of the sources of the adjustment for "voter identification" comes from information about the NUMBER of registered voters in an area, including the DELTA in such registrations over a period of time. Ironically, the ACORN people's piles of fraudulent registrations result in the poll people over adjusting (in Dem favor) the voter identifications hashed against poll percentages. This makes the polls all show Nobama way ahead of where he likely really is. The polls think there are more total democrats going to vote than there actually are. This is designed to get the polls showing a bump lead, to dissuade the other side from bothering. Plus the Acorn guys are now trying to actually cast VOTES using the fraudulent cards. Ergo: Bad shit. Now quit fucking trolling. |
||||
|
KUPOLO read this, again, and again, and again. And after awhile, come back and read it again. |
|
|
From a Post on here before....
Polls are WEIGHTED based on the # of Dems and Repubs. in the polled area. So (might be oversimplified, but bear with me). I'm from the AFARR poll service. I call 100 people here in this area. I get 50 people saying they are voting for McCain and 50 people voting for Obama (dropping the undecideds for simplicity's sake). So, do I report 50% McCain and 50% Obama in my Poll? NO. I then look at the registered Republicans (say 35% in this area). Then the Democrats (say 45% registered). That leaves 20% independents...so we throw them out. I then Multiply my 50 responses for Obama by .45 (the Democrats) and get 22.5 (My Weighted numbers). I then multiply my 50 responses for McCain by .35 and get 17.5. Then I add 17.5 and 22.5 and get 40 as a total. Then 22.5 divided by 40 gives me Obama's weighted numbers = 56.25 17.5 divided by 40 give me McCain's = 43.75 So I report Obama 56% to McCain 44% That is how the polls get skewed by Voter registrations. It doesn't take into account the cross-over voters (the Hillarists that will vote for Palin), etc. |
|
Bold and Red so you cant miss it. For your next topic, are you going to ask why this is a bad thing? |
|
|
|
Thank you. You saved me the trouble. |
|
|
"effect" is a noun. "Affect" is a verb. You mean "affecting."
I think "effect" can be used as a verb, but it means to cause. You "effect" a change. |
|
Gee, why would ACORN think it were so important to get fraudulent voter registrations to the elections office? I mean, it doesn't make any difference right? Why spend all that money, since none of those fraudulent registrations end up as fraudulent votes right?
Busy work, that's all it is. |
|
|
He must be running the small business of his where he employees people of such low moral character and integrity he knows they would cheat him if given the chance.
|
|
He gets it-he just needs a little attention, poor kid. |
|
|
First of all, you aren't trying to understand anything. You're just trolling. But since I am bored and feel like biting, here's an answer. Many of those on the left have been trying to say that this issue with ACORN is politically motivated and is disenfranchising inner city voters that would have voted for Obama. It makes just as much sense to say that those on the right in battleground states feel disenfranchised because they perceive ACORN's blatant fraud gives them little hope of their side winning. They might say to themselves: "Why should I even try considering that my vote can't possibly outnumber all the fraudulent ones out there?". |
|
|
There's more to this than just fraudulent registrations - inform yourself. Here's another Ohio example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2onRgtgXkc FUCK OBAMA & that DU poster around here |
|
|
Dan the troll. |
|
|
Why does anyone even feed this troll anymore?
When you see he is the poster just don't click. |
|
I do because this site gets indexed by google pretty quickly, and someone might be led to one of his dem talking point threads and the truth needs to be here as well. |
|
|
I know it's hard for you to believe, but this was an honest question and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I took a class on polling methodology while working on my political science degree and while I don't remember much, I do remember that in fact this is not how a lot of polling works. The use of political party in polling questions is a subject of big contention among the polling community. Many feel that it skews results so it is certainly not used in all polls. _________________________________________________________________________________ So I just did a bit of reading on the subject and I found a really interesting article that covers this exact discussion. It says that polls conducted by academics do not like to use party affiliation but that many pollsters do use it. This would explain why in my class it was not used. It's an interesting read and I thank you for bringing up this point even though the anger wasn't really necessary.
what this shows is that most pollsters are using the stable number of Democrats vs Republicans that has not changed since 1984 instead of a new number that ACORN could influence. It really takes the wind out of the sails of your argument I think. |
||
|
Here’s how…
Suppose you take a poll about what everyone’s favorite toy as a child was. Your poll has two choices * Tonka Truck * Barbie Doll. You get 4,000 responses and find out that about 3,000 people preferred the truck and 1,000 preferred the doll. BUT you also find out that 3/4th of the people responding were men. Men 100% preferred the truck and women 100% preferred the doll. So, your poll is flawed, right? Not really. All you have to do is to correct for the numbers. 50% of the people are men and 50% are women. So you can conclude that it’s a 50/50 split. Make sense? Now, suppose you ask about everyone’s favorite holiday? 90% say Christmas and 10% say Hanukkah. Once again you have split right down religious lines with all Christians answering “Christmas” and all Jews answering “Hanukkah.” If Jews make up 10% of your population then the numbers are good. But what if they don’t? Suppose they make up 1% of your population. (Perhaps you did your survey on a night when many Christians were attending a church function.) If you know the ratio of Christians to Jews you can easily calculate the correct answer. But if you use an inaccurate estimate of the ratio your poll will be wrong. So, you take a poll and find out that… Claim to be Republican on the phone… 100% McCain Claim to be Independent on the phone… 33/33/33/1 (Obama/McCain/Undecided/Mickey Mouse, in that order.) Claim to be Democrat… 100% Obama. (Keep in mind that many people will screw with the pollsters just on general principles… The principle in this case being that it ain’t nobody’s business how you voted. Democrats might claim to be Republicans for Obama and Republicans might claim to be Democrats for McCain.) OK, but you gotta go with what you got. So, if 33% of your population is Republican, 33% is Democrat, and 33% independent, your numbers indicate a dead heat. But when you look at voter registration roles and see… Clark Kent – D John Doe – D Seymore Butts – D Tim Madison – R Wendy Madison – R Enormous Johnson – D Gerald Washington –D Betty Washington – D John Morgan – I Sarah Morgan – I Homey D’Clown – D Wang Chung – D Dick Smoker – D Jack Mehoff – D You then conclude that there are far more Democrats than Republicans or independents. So, you drastically over compensate and come up with a totally inaccurate result. |
|
|
|
Actually no, this deals with polls, not votes. It's an entirely different question. |
|
|
I know. DUpolo reminds me of the "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" skit that the late great Phil Hartman use to do on SNL. listoftheday.blogspot.com/2008/08/classic-snl-clip-of-day-unfrozen.html |
||
|
So what pollsters are doing according to the polling methodology article I cited is that they use the number of Dems at 38-39% and Republicans at 35% because this is the number that polls have shown to be steady since 1984. In other words, they are not altering their percentages in their tabulation data this year despite any new registrations from ACORN. |
|
|
I know I'm going to end up typing this a hundred times because you only read direct replies, but pollsters are using set percentages for Dems and Repubs that they have been using since 1984 and have proven year after year to be accurate. They are not changing these percentages becasue of ACORN. What does that do to your argument? |
|||
|
It is til you doing the typical dem-style damage control. "I don't support it, but it doesn't matter" "It is wrong, but it won't change things" All attempts to minimize the bad actions while pretending to not support them. Democrats support ACORN's fraud. Democrats paid for them to do this in the last election, the same stuff happened, and Democrats paid for them to do the exact same thing this year, in the exact same way, knowing what the result would be. Would you hire a convicted pedophile to watch your kids? Oly if you wanted them miolested. Would you give money to a group with a long history of voter registration fraud to go register voters? Only if you wanted fraud. There is clearly an element on the left who wanted this, or they would not have funded it. They can't claim they didn't know it would happen. You talking point attempts to tacitly dismiss all this as nothing of signifigance are clearly evident. |
||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.