re: If Hillary wins, Fayetteville will be where two presidents were married.

quote:

---

people who have preexisting conditions can now maintain coverage

---

Do you have experience with this? Because my grandpa had to pay out of pocket for nearly everything having to do with nearly every treatment regarding his heart because his "quality of life" wasn't deemed good enough. He was only 60 fricking years old and ran two businesses. The red tape and screening bullshite with Obamacare slowed his treatment process down so much that he ended up dying of a heart attack the week he was to go in for surgery. Under his old insurance he would have just gone in and paid the premium. Anything having to do with that garbage can kiss my arse.

quote:

---

Again, 91% of African Americans polled were Democrat. This coming from the poll you posted. So, in your opinion, there is no problem with that? That in your opinion, doesn't skew the poll at all?

Come on man...

I can find polls that show Trump should win the presidential election by a land slide. Its not hard.

---

What I'm hearing you say is that you still don't understand how oversampling works. If they oversampled African Americans, then that means the MOE for the African American demographic is low, which is good. Then they weighted the group so that it contributed proportionately to the overall survey results in a way that accurately reflects the proportional size of the AA demographic to the general population.

That's not a problem at all. This methodology makes the results more reliable than if they had not oversampled African Americans.

So in your words, why do you think it's a problem?

edit: I'm still interested in your explanation of why a sample size of 2200 is a problem.

quote:

---

If you are polling 10 people about black lives matter and wanted to know what americans thought about it.... You're insisting that it is necessary to over sample the African Americans in order to get an accurate poll? Yet, that is not a clear representation of the country as a whole. 13.6 of Americans are black. If 30% of the people we poll are African Americans, the poll is not reflective of what people really think, or how things really are.

By doing so, you can increase your chances at having the poll come out like you want it by increasing the poll size of a certain race.

---

Wow, you didn't read what I quoted from the Pew methodology about oversampling, did you? What you described is not how it works at all.

I'm going to quote it again in hopes that you will read and understand it:

quote:

---

A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.

---

LINK

That means that oversampling AAs does not skew the poll in favor of the AAs' responses. They still only represent 13.6% of the results of the poll, but the margin of error for AA responses is reduced significantly by oversampling, meaning the end results of the poll more accurately reflect the overall population.

quote:

---

You attempting to tell me that a poll of 2200 people is an accurate measure of the way things really are is laughable. Then you add in the fact that African Americans were over sampled in the poll and it is even more laughable, but certainly fits into your agenda.

---

It's funny how ardently you believe you are right, when anyone else reading this will clearly see how you are wrong.

quote:

---

It's funny how ardently you believe you are right, when anyone else reading this will clearly see how you are wrong.

---

I know I am right.

Any person/media outlet/survey can make any poll look any way. Then, it is admitted in the methodology that African Americans are oversampled in a poll in which 91% of those African Americans were democrat. Yea, that may sway the poll. Especially when there are only 2200 people supposedly contacted and included in this poll.

And it looks like "everyone else" isn't seeing where I am wrong.

quote:

---

I know I am right.

Any person/media outlet/survey can make any poll look any way. Then, it is admitted in the methodology that African Americans are oversampled in a poll in which 91% of those African Americans were democrat. Yea, that may sway the poll. Especially when there are only 2200 people supposedly contacted and included in this poll.

And it looks like "everyone else" isn't seeing where I am wrong.

---

Yes or no: the African American oversample was weighted to reflect the proportional size of the AA population to the overall population.

Yes or no: the margin of error for a sample size of 2,200 in a total population size of 320,000,000 is about 2%.

Hawgeye is doing about as well here as he did in the coaching search threads from the Bert hire.

quote:

---

Even the Director of Survey Research says that they are unreliable...

---

He was talking about the difficulty of forecasting who will turn out to an election, which is not what we've been talking about. And he didn't say Pew was unreliable, he just said that projecting turn out is hard.

If you read the entire article, you would have noticed that it identifies Pew Research as one of the best polling organizations in the country. It also identifies the increased use of cell phones being a major cause of the increased difficulty of drawing accurate conclusions from poll results, but since you've read the Pew methodology, then you know that Pew, as one of the best-funded polling organizations, is able to absorb the much higher cost associated with obtaining large, random cell phone samples.

For other readers, here's a link to the article Hawgeye and I are talking about: LINK

Now, back to the questions I posed to you that you probably don't want to answer:

Yes or no: the African American oversample was weighted to reflect the proportional size of the AA population to the overall population.

Yes or no: the margin of error for a sample size of 2,200 in a total population size of 320,000,000 is about 2%.

quote:

---

It's okay, I'll educate the poor bastard.

-2010 Obama created his first budget. It in turn created nearly $1.6 trillion in debt. The most of any president we've ever had.
-2011 $1.3 trillion in debt
-2012 $1.09 trillion in debt
-2013 $680 billion, thanks to sequestration
-2014 $485 billion
-2015 $438 billion
-2016 $503 billion(7 months in)

---

quote:

---

Hawgeye

---

Here's the first link to prove that you like to pull numbers out of your arse when you get into an argument.


There's plenty more where that came from that will give the same figures if you want more.

Official annual budget deficits are a matter of historical fact, not what you think they are, or feel they are.

I realize that Obama is kind of water under the bridge but it's just one example of many how a president can perform well in an area and have his performance completely lied about by the bias media like Fox and Hannity, Limpdick, etc.

All this misinformation on past performance by our biased news agencies is how we end up with candidates like Trump, far and away the worst human being to ever be selected as the candidate of a major U.S. party.


Amazing deficit performance under Obama compared to what he started with