tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post2723894944988647072..comments2023-10-19T21:48:56.560-05:00Comments on meaning in history: As I Suspectedmark wauckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-84870051366107508372019-10-22T17:24:27.018-05:002019-10-22T17:24:27.018-05:00Polling has become about as corrupt and useless as...Polling has become about as corrupt and useless as it can be. Sample sizes aren't anywhere large enough because questions haven't been validated (used and verified against similar questions to determine response tipping point). Sample sizes aren't large enough because the sample hasn't been validated as random. (Typically samples are re-weighted for political affiliation, but thatForbeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08397667344368400622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-8134727296707371662019-10-22T14:02:21.299-05:002019-10-22T14:02:21.299-05:00Thanks. I saw another poll this morning, I forget ...Thanks. I saw another poll this morning, I forget where, that came up with similar seemingly counterintuitive results: 50% support the inquiry, meanwhile Trump's positives go up--all in one poll.<br /><br />The answer seems to be that people aren't really paying attention but figure that the House is just doing what the House does. Once they start paying more attention things start going mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-41102392781340627402019-10-22T13:47:34.278-05:002019-10-22T13:47:34.278-05:00 It appears the question was in the form of two br... It appears the question was in the form of two brief statements with three optional boxes to check for each…<br />The inquiry into President Trump<br />Support 50%<br />Oppose 45%<br />Don’t know/refused <br /><br />Impeaching and removing President Trump<br />Support 43%<br />Oppose 53%<br />Don’t know/refuse <br /><br />That was about it. The NYT then ran with that to come up with its own Bebenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-35192765594949168572019-10-21T20:10:00.438-05:002019-10-21T20:10:00.438-05:00Heh. Pierre Delecto. What a ...Heh. Pierre Delecto. What a ...mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-65908563232697206212019-10-21T20:09:21.652-05:002019-10-21T20:09:21.652-05:00I don't say they refused--I didn't dig for...I don't say they refused--I didn't dig for it. I guess I was waiting for a commenter to do it. :-)mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-56024022639965419422019-10-21T19:41:18.588-05:002019-10-21T19:41:18.588-05:00I've never heard of a "reputable" po...I've never heard of a "reputable" pollster refusing to show the phrasing of a question, on such an important topic. How common is this?aNanyMousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452492302514671882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-85113824475339191662019-10-21T19:21:31.154-05:002019-10-21T19:21:31.154-05:00We need to strongly support this President. It is...We need to strongly support this President. It is our duty as conservatives, freedom lovers, lovers of the rule of law, etc., to stand with Donald. <br /><br />This is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party. Vote as if your life depended on it.<br /><br />Don't be a Pierre Delecto/ Joenoreply@blogger.com