The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Statistics: that Iowa poll was legitimately fraudulent.
| Post nut horror | 11/14/24 |
| leathery commodified testicle | 11/14/24 |
| Reginald Barclay | 11/14/24 |
| ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,, | 11/14/24 |
| Slaanesh | 11/14/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 14th, 2024 7:07 PM Author: Post nut horror https://newcriterion.com/dispatch/statistical-questions-about-the-iowa-poll/
The Selzer poll, with a margin of error of 3.4, missed the real outcome by 16 points, or by as many as five standard deviations from the true result as revealed on election day.
What are the odds of drawing such a sample by legitimate means? Answer: roughly one time in 3.5 million trials. In other words, given these odds, the results in the Iowa poll likely did not come about by “honest error.”
No one knows now how or why this happened. It is possible that someone in the field made systematic errors in recording survey answers—for example, by mistakenly tallying some prospective Trump votes for Harris. In that case, the error would have occurred due to incompetence on the part of the polling company rather than to outright fraud.
It is more likely that someone deliberately manipulated the sample so that it included too many Democrats, or simply made up the numbers as they came in for the purpose of giving confidence to Harris voters and worry for Trump supporters, or to bring national attention to a poll taken in a state not regarded as competitive. |
Date: November 14th, 2024 7:14 PM Author: leathery commodified testicle I thought Dems and libs were on the side of science and facts? How can this be? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634384&forum_id=2#48338714) |
 |
Date: November 14th, 2024 9:23 PM Author: Reginald Barclay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634384&forum_id=2#48339216) |
|
Date: November 14th, 2024 9:35 PM Author: ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,, This is a dumb article.
I've posted this before, but these polls are not "polls" at all, and the math of statistics is totally inapplicable.
True polling would be if you selected 10,000 people at random, kidnapped them, scanned their brains, and determined if they would vote and for who. Then based on that sample you could determine the confidence interval of what the majority vote would be.
Modern election polling is people calling 60 people in order to get 1 person who will answer the pollsters question, and that person has almost zero in common with the 59 people who hung up. So pollsters use this data to make assumptions. I believe the better pollsters now ask if they voted and who tehy voted for last time vs who they will vote for this time. So theyre not so much gauging "who did the respondent say they were voting for" but "what % of XYZ votes are switching their votes" and extrapolating based on the last election.
It seems like Selzer was using something closer to true polling, and just ran into a situation where she thought she had a random sample but really the only people happy to talk to her were Kamala voters.
But in any event, none of these polls are anything close to a poll anymore - they're models trying to extrapolate 300 million people based on a small subset of very weird people. |
|
Date: November 14th, 2024 9:41 PM Author: Slaanesh this is an extremely stupid article
it's just sampling error because she didn't want to "project the electorate"
she just called thousands of Iowa landlines, Trumpmos ignored her en masse, the people responding were much more liberal than Iowa as a whole, and her sample was fucked
it was obviously fucked from the beginning, before she published it she knew it was D+2 in a heavily republican state |