Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gallup On Guns [View all]ancianita
(36,055 posts)5. You lose if you make a claim and show no proof. I've at least got polling history in the OP.
from Wikipedia:
From 1936 to 2008, Gallup Polls correctly predicted the winner of the presidential election with the notable exceptions of the 1948 Thomas Dewey-Harry S. Truman election,[citation needed] where nearly all pollsters predicted a Dewey victory (which also led to the infamous Dewey Defeats Truman headline[according to whom?]), and 1976, when they inaccurately projected a slim victory by Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter.[citation needed]
For the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.[48]
In 2012, Gallup's final election survey had Mitt Romney at 49% and Barack Obama at 48%, compared to the final election results showing Obama with 51.1% to Romney's 47.2%.[49]
Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.[50] Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of Gallup, responded to the criticism by stating that Gallup simply makes an estimate of the national popular vote rather than predicting the winner and that their final poll was within the statistical margin of error.
Newport also criticized analysts such as Silver who aggregate and analyze other people's polls, stating that "Its much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others polls."[51]
For the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.[48]
In 2012, Gallup's final election survey had Mitt Romney at 49% and Barack Obama at 48%, compared to the final election results showing Obama with 51.1% to Romney's 47.2%.[49]
Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.[50] Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of Gallup, responded to the criticism by stating that Gallup simply makes an estimate of the national popular vote rather than predicting the winner and that their final poll was within the statistical margin of error.
Newport also criticized analysts such as Silver who aggregate and analyze other people's polls, stating that "Its much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others polls."[51]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)#Accuracy
Nate Silver is a poll aggregator. Period.
Gallup has spent 80 years building representative sampling of the U.S. population. That's where the strength of polls lie. Sampling.
Question: Have you ever studied graduate level statistics? Or statistics?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
26 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You lose if you make a claim and show no proof. I've at least got polling history in the OP.
ancianita
Aug 2019
#5
I'd like to believe it. I know how to use a gun but wouldn't own one. Still, the existence of guns
ancianita
Aug 2019
#11
I've shot and killed and made dinner of animals I've eaten, but not in the 21st century.
hunter
Aug 2019
#23
Thanks for your story. Fascinating. I remember vets who wouldn't go near firearms, too.
ancianita
Aug 2019
#26
Most people in the U.S.A. can't be bothered to own a gun, second amendment or not.
hunter
Aug 2019
#24
A change in the national situation and total harm done could be weighed against the NRA's tired
ancianita
Aug 2019
#13
We're more grounded in reality here than a lot of 20-somethings whose cerebra haven't yet developed.
ancianita
Aug 2019
#21