Poll: Who Would Make a Better President, Clinton or Trump?

So now the question is: who’s the barf and who’s diarrhea?

1 Like

Even worse is roostering, when you have both at the same time. I experienced this one night at a club in Vegas while taking too much extasy. That bathroom at the Venetian will never be the same ever again.

This actually happened to me a few months ago. Bad fried chicken & I had 3 pieces… It was probably the worst thing I’ve ever experienced in my life. I vividly remember the smell. If someone gave me the option of dealing with that for 12 hours (about how long it lasted) versus going through boot camp again, I’d take boot camp every single time.

2 Likes

Yea it was pretty horrible from what I can remember. What’s worse was trying to compose yourself after your body has declared jihad on itself, and trying to go hit on half naked chicks who were easily 9’s and 10’s right after you almost expelled out a dead body from your mouth and your asshole.

2 Likes

Wow

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/poll-florida-republicans-vote-for-hillary-clinton

^^^^^ sounds unrealistic

Trump sounds more like dropping a cinder block into a pond, so he’s the poo.

Hillary sounds more like the noise someone makes as they dry heave their way to a petechial hemmorage, so she’s the puke. “HilAAAA.Aaa…”

My recent worst was some kind of awful contracted during a fishing outing for disabled vets. An auxiliary group lovingly prepared some kind of toxic shredded pork bbq that took out four of us. Luckily, none of the old guys in wheel chairs ate any of it. I can’t imagine the disaster that would have been.

2 Likes

The poll surveyed 718 people, 311 who said they voted early, through web and phone interviews.

718 people out of how many million who voted ?

Fun fact: the precision of an estimated proportion (such as the percentage of people who voted) is far more dependent on the sample size, rather than the population size. The variability of a statistic measured from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population.

I know this is super math-y and confusing to most people, but it’s true. The margin of error of +/- 3% in most polls would be true whether the sample of ~1,000 random voters was drawn from a million people or a billion people.

1 Like

I’m just saying, if nearly 30% of Florida GOP voters end up voting for Hillary and that’s representative of the GOP nationwide, it’s gonna be ugly for Trump and the GOP…

There’s so much misinformation really seems pointless to look at polls or early voting info. In one poll Trump magically closes in on an 11 point lead in one week. Did he actually do that or was he never behind? Or is it to give the illusion of a tight race to pull in viewers/clicks?

Statistics PhD comes into thread, simplifies sampling into easiest explanation possible.

Then quickly realizes to a 99% confidence level, that 0% of readers had any clue what the simplification meant. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think Conway saying media (and polls my addition) are advocates rather than journalists is accurate.

Somewhere I read someone suggest polls are intentionally rigged because they create a self fulfilling prophecy. Democrat voters will become emboldened to vote while Trump supporters will become deflated.

I would guess that would work on the same people that can get a phone call saying - go vote john doe… need a ride down there.

Again I quote yesterday 40% vote in primary (and off years) 60% in presidential elections.
Public too busy snap-chatting and watching tv to care who is running the country.

1 Like

The thing is, someone like my wife runs these data collection surveys.(she did some work for the Romney campaign) What she is REALLY good at is getting the desired results by researching and learning the demographics of a region by area code and first 3 digits. She could call one area code and get the results that are being discussed, or call another and get the opposite.

I don’t doubt the mathematical theory. I use it myself for QA in fabrication. I do, however doubt the randomness of the sample.

I believe this is what happened with Brexit, they sampled a specific location to yield a desired result. The day before the vote, the polling showed the stay vote winning by 10 points. The final vote had the leave vote win by 2 points. You cannot have a 12 point swing overnight without something being screwy.

LOL, thanks.

I chuckled.

This is why it’s useful to look at trends in a number of different polls, not just a single poll. Even extremely well-conducted polls are subject to errors and random variation. The aggregate of lots of polls will give a more accurate picture as to the overall trend.

I’m not surprised that you think this, as you’ve made it very clear that you just believe whatever you’re told by any source that’s most convenient for you, but for people with functional brains we should all recognize that this logic can work both ways, Just as it’s arguable that the alleged polling leader’s voters are emboldened while the loser’s voters are deflated, it is also arguable that the leader’s voters become complacent while the loser’s voters are more motivated than ever to go out and vote for their candidate

The truth is that no one is really sure which of these is a more powerful force.

That’s fair, but these are issues with the poll’s sampling methodology, not with the numbers themselves.

A truly random sample of 1,000 likely voters is sufficient to give a reasonably accurate estimate of the numbers within +/- about 3%. The difficulty is determining just how “random” that sample is.

*EDIT TO ADD: sorry, Skyzyk, I truncated your post a little bit by accident and left off the part where you mentioned this exact issue.

1 Like

Given your background, is it true that there is that many undecideds that change their mind weekly?

Given the polar opposite of policies between Trump and Clinton, I can’t see the huge swings being accurate.

The are far from polar opposites.