2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAlert !!! - SANITY is breaking out among the Freepers...
(this comes out of a thread discussing the "creative" plan to block President Obama's victory by boycotting the Electoral College vote, spun over at WND)
It does nobody any good to live in a fantasy world. Maybe television has destroyed our country, people are way to easily deceived into believing fiction.
You could add up every imagined fraud thrown out by the WND nuts, the conspiracists, and people who are just too eager to find wrongdoing to actually read headers on spreadsheets, and you wouldnt come close to the vote totals separating Romney from Obama and victory.
When did supposedly intelligent conservatives start thinking that polls of 1000 people tell you the truth? Not that it matters, because the polls told us that Romney would lose except of course if you changed the parameters more to your liking. State polls, the only polls that matter in an electoral college election, showed even BEFORE the hurricane that Romney needed a miracle.
...snip...
So long as you view the world from your own perspective, you wont understand why anybody would vote for Obama, and therefore you will be shocked, and assume it must be fraud. Hang out for a day with the other side, and youll understand why they loved Obama, why they got better turnout than you could expect, and how they won the election.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2961345/posts?q=1&;page=51
Can't imagine he'll last long...
yellowcanine
(35,701 posts)You are correct, he won't last long. Okay, which DUer has infiltrated Freepland?
BainsBane
(53,074 posts)I don't believe for a minute that it's a freeper.
TheOther95Percent
(1,035 posts)The person making sense has a low post count. He/She will not last long.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The voting machines are owned by republicans. There is no way we stole many votes. Obama knew he didn't need to, all he had to do was make sure the people showed up to vote. Every election that the Democrats turnout at around 60% we win.
You should join us in now seeing to it that the business of the country is done by the will of the people.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)They've no doubt tombstoned him by now.
appleannie1
(5,070 posts)Rockyj
(538 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)would mean giving up illusions long held and treasured
central scrutinizer
(11,662 posts)re: "When did supposedly intelligent conservatives start thinking that polls of 1000 people tell you the truth?"
the mathematics behind confidence intervals and probability is as solid as anything else in math. If the sample is unbiased, a sample size of 1000 is sufficient to produce a margin of error of around 3% with 95% confidence. This is the typical number used for election polls. It doesn't matter how large the population is. It will be just as accurate with a population of 200,000,000 as it is with a population of 200,000. The trick is in sampling - bias can crop in many different ways.
Native
(5,943 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I've always assumed that, for political polling, the practical effect of considering variance is that there's a higher margin of error in the rare poll in which more than two candidates receive significant support, because the variance is higher.
Of course, you're absolutely right that the issue of sampling bias is far more important, as the Literary Digest discovered.
ejbr
(5,856 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)One could give a similar speech to a small minority around here.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)And it was positive, thanking him for being the "designated grownup" of the thread.