Adam Schiff & The Dems - Ukrainian Peach Mint inquiry hearing thread

[SillieBazzillie]

This is all the dems have to fight with. Their debates were crap no one likes the candidates and worst the economy is booming under Trump policy.

Why are people who hate Trump wanting to increase taxes for working class back to Obama era and have economy slip into recession? It's bad enough it will happen in 2024 when it's politics as usual again. Durp.

Face it the opposing Trump party is pure garbage.

Link to "booming" economy? GDP hovering around 2%, manufacturing recession, inverted yield curve, multiple rate cuts, etc etc etc.

lmfao at booming. This alone will be enough to boot the Orange buffoon in 2020.

[monty097]

lol @ how the arguments ITT have deteriorated into polls and statistics because they know this whole impeachment joke is imploding.

[ImBunky]

You should probably request another permaban then.

The fact is that the poll you posted was a terribly run poll that doesn't allow the reader to view the demographics of those polled. It lists its "categories" but does not like how many of those surveyed fell into what category. Of their sample size of 1,000, only 506 responded which is likely to lead that those who did respond had an interest in their approval (or disapproval) of the situation. This is very important information for a small sample such as this attempting to be applied to such a large diverse population.

I'm not here to argue about which polls are accurate or not as I generally put very little weight on polls that are supposed to accurately represent a population as large and diverse as that of the US. In no way shape or form would a voluntary poll of 500 people be able to accurately represent the populations views on any topic, much less should those results be published by a major media outlet with the headline that it was published under.

Those are the facts at hand. You posted a chitty poll. It is what it is.

Good post. You need to understand what you are looking for.

I did a quick search and turned up a Scientific America article that stated around 1K should be a good number for the adult population. However, as you mention, you need to have a good demographic distribution. I am not sure who even answers and responds to these poles (that would be a good pole). They would have to come in as an unidentified number, and I almost never answer those.

[LukeLissen]

and before nolibs or another lying shill plays games again like so many times before when this comes up, this is -not- who would win the popular vote but rather their predictions of who would win the electoral college results based on state by state analysis.

[SillieBazzillie]

Good post. You need to understand what you are looking for.

I did a quick search and turned up a Scientific America article that stated around 1K should be a good number for the adult population. However, as you mention, you need to have a good demographic distribution. I am not sure who even answers and responds to these poles (that would be a good pole). They would have to come in as an unidentified number, and I almost never answer those.

I posted up a few post ago how accurate 538 polling (which is an accumulation of polls) was in the 2018 mid-terms. Whether or not you guys like to admit it, unless the polls have an obvious bias (Rasmussen), modern polling is extremely accurate. Polls did overstate greatly Hilldawg's chances in 2016 but if you don't think these professional polling services have adjusted their methodology since then y'all are high.

Polling, while not perfect, typically gives a pretty accurate assessment of what the prevailing thought is. For example, as the Fox poll noted, fully 1/2 of the country thinks Trump should be impeached AND removed.

[SillieBazzillie]

The only one on there that matters is 538. The accumulate polling data from a wide variety of sources. And 72% sounds about right.

Oh, do you guys think the team with a 72% chance of winning never loses?

SAD

[LukeLissen]

The only one on there that matters is 538. The accumulate polling data from a wide variety of sources. And 72% sounds about right.

Oh, do you guys think the team with a 72% chance of winning never loses?

SAD

LOL

Why is 538 the only one that matters?

[SillieBazzillie]

LOL

Why is 538 the only one that matters?

Because it accumulates all the quality polls. Does this explain it?

Our House forecasts use almost all the polls we can find, including partisan polls put out by campaigns or other interested parties. (We have not traditionally used partisan polls in our Senate or presidential forecasts, but they are a necessary evil for the House.) However, as polling has gotten more complex, including attempts to create fake polls, there are an increasing number of exceptions:

We don’t use polls if we have significant concerns about their veracity or if the pollster is known to have faked polls before.
We don’t use DIY polls commissioned by nonprofessional hobbyists on online platforms such as Google Surveys. (This is a change in policy since 2016. Professional or campaign polls using these platforms are still fine.)
We don’t treat subsamples of multistate polls as individual “polls” unless certain conditions are met.7
We don’t use “polls” that blend or smooth their data using methods such as MRP. These can be perfectly fine techniques — but if you implement them, you’re really running a model rather than a poll. We want to do the blending and smoothing ourselves rather than inputting other people’s models into ours.
These cases are rare — so if you don’t see a poll on our “latest polls” page, there’s a good chance that we’ve simply missed it. (House polls can be a lot harder to track down than presidential ones.) Please drop us a line if there’s a poll you think we’ve missed.

Polls are weighted based on their sample size, their recency and their pollster rating (which in turn is based on the past accuracy of the pollster, as well as its methodology). These weights are determined by algorithm; we aren’t sticking our fingers in the wind and rating polls on a case-by-case basis. In a slight change this year, the algorithm emphasizes the diversity of polls more than it has in the past; in any particular race, it will insist on constructing an average of polls from at least two or three distinct polling firms even if some of the polls are less recent.

[ImBunky]

The only one on there that matters is 538. The accumulate polling data from a wide variety of sources. And 72% sounds about right.

Oh, do you guys think the team with a 72% chance of winning never loses?

SAD

Then why a post about a pole that 70% want Trump impeached.

[LukeLissen]

The only one on there that matters is 538. The accumulate polling data from a wide variety of sources. And 72% sounds about right.

Oh, do you guys think the team with a 72% chance of winning never loses?

SAD

LOL

Why is 538 the only one that matters?

Because it accumulates all the quality polls. Does this explain it?

False and No.

-ALL- of those listed in the graphic I posted were using a 'poll of polls' method with numerous polling data from a wide variety of polling sources, combined with their own statistical models to analyze that variety of polling data, to then predict state by state results and then the national total of electoral votes of Clinton v Trump.

PEC, Predictwise, dailykos, NYT, CNN, and HuffPo -ALL- used a wide variety of polling data from many different polls and advanced models just like 538





DailyKOS 2016 final prediction
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-final-version


NYT 2016 final prediction
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ons/polls.html


CNN 2016 final prediction
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/polit...-donald-trump/


HuffPo 2016 election final prediction
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/polls...b0e80b02cc2a94


Predictwise 2016 final prediction
http://markets.predictwise.com/polit...esident-winner


Princeton Election Consortium 2016 final prediction
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/2016s-...lver-sam-wang/

[SillieBazzillie]

False and No.

-ALL- of those listed in the graphic I posted were using a 'poll of polls' method with numerous polling data from a wide variety of polling sources, combined with their own statistical models to analyze that variety of polling data, to then predict state by state results and then the national total of electoral votes of Clinton v Trump.

PEC, Predictwise, dailykos, NYT, CNN, and HuffPo -ALL- used a wide variety of polling data from many different polls and advanced models just like 538





Predictwise 2016 final prediction
http://markets.predictwise.com/polit...esident-winner


DailyKOS 2016 final prediction
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-final-version


NYT 2016 final prediction
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ons/polls.html


CNN 2016 final prediction
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/polit...-donald-trump/


HuffPo 2016 election final prediction
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/polls...b0e80b02cc2a94


Princeton Election Consortium 2016 final prediction
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/2016s-...lver-sam-wang/

lmfao, clearly they weren't all using the same methodology or they wouldn't have gotten such disparate answers. 538 is the gold standard of polling, everyone knows it.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe like 60% of the country thinks Trump is awesome. We'll see in a year...

[LukeLissen]

lmfao, clearly they weren't all using the same methodology or they wouldn't have gotten such disparate answers. 538 is the gold standard of polling, everyone knows it.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe like 60% of the country thinks Trump is awesome. We'll see in a year...

no shifting the goal posts

You were wrong and have been disproven.

You were claiming that only 538 accumulated polling data from a wide variety of polls, (not 'different methodology') when in reality all the others listed do as well, with all using mostly the same polls as 538.

[SillieBazzillie]

no shifting the goal posts

You were wrong and have been disproven.

You were claiming that only 538 accumulated polling data from a wide variety of polls, (not 'different methodology') when in reality all the others listed do as well, with all using mostly the same polls as 538.

omfg. I posted 2018 results as "proof" and noted that they had learned from their issues with Trump.

But go on and keep on saying how polls are meaningless. I guess when you're a Trump supporter you need to fake reasons to feel good about supporting a POS?

IDK

[brighamw]

Hey guys, been a little busy with work and my daughters b/day this weekend, haven't been able to keep up on things...

Is Trump still everyone's President?

TIA

[SaltyDog920]

So dumb. Plenty of proof has already been given, you're just too blind by your Trump white-knighting to admit it.

Trump already gave us the evidence when he released the transcript ADMITTING he "needed a favor though" after he held up the money. Trump then specifically mentioned the Bidens (and fuking Crowdstrike lmao). Now we're hearing from people who are confirming everything Trump admitted to.

LMAO at your idiocy. At least you're using the only "actual" evidence we have; evidence which vindicates Trump. Since you're using the only actual evidence we have, show me anywhere in the transcripts where Trump said "do this favor for me or I will keep your aid withheld". You can't. LMAO,...j

You should just focus on the "hearsay" evidence that your corrupt lib friends are focusing on since "hearsay" is better evidence than direct evidence. Pathetic.

[ImBunky]

Hey guys, been a little busy with work and my daughters b/day this weekend, haven't been able to keep up on things...

Is Trump still everyone's President?

TIA

All is well.

[LukeLissen]

omfg. I posted 2018 results as "proof" and noted that they had learned from their issues with Trump.

But go on and keep on saying how polls are meaningless. I guess when you're a Trump supporter you need to fake reasons to feel good about supporting a POS?

IDK

[Judgment]

Math not even once.

I'm going to pretend you're trolling, because it's honestly difficult to believe an adult can be this retarded.

What was this thread originally about? Oh, right, seventeen goal posts ago it was about Trump impeachment hearings.

[Austanian]

Your IQ hasn't been above 70 once on anything you've ever posted. I'm going to pretend you're trolling, because it's honestly difficult to believe an adult can be this retarded.

Despite Sillie being retarded and/or a troll....

Your understanding of statistical representation and samples is not developed enough to comment on what is going on when models fail.

[Judgment]

Despite Sillie being retarded and/or a troll....

Your understanding of statistical representation and samples is not developed enough to comment on what is going on when models fail.

You don't even comprehend what statistics were used as a sample to create the statistic. Who did they interview? What is their political affiliation? Where do they live? Where do they work? How much money do they make? What party affiliation do their families belong to? You don't even know if they counted the votes correctly.

You take five hundred random people, and extrapolate it to create a "statistic", and you're not following why this is retarded?

Edit: I forgot to add the human condition: People make last minute, knee-jerk reactions too. However they feel at the time of taking a poll, they could see one thing in the news next week and flip-flop.

It's not something to be putting your faith in. And not only does it simply confirm someone's bias, but it also encourages the "bandwagon" mentality for the sheep followers, instead of independent thought.

[NYPat]

LMAO at your idiocy. At least you're using the only "actual" evidence we have; evidence which vindicates Trump. Since you're using the only actual evidence we have, show me anywhere in the transcripts where Trump said "do this favor for me or I will keep your aid withheld". You can't. LMAO,...j

You should just focus on the "hearsay" evidence that your corrupt lib friends are focusing on since "hearsay" is better evidence than direct evidence. Pathetic.

So Trump, all by himself, decides to stop the aid and then has his people tell Zelensky you're only going to get to speak to Trump if you talk about the Bidens, and Trump says I'm going to need you to do me a favor though, and you don't think it's evidence because Trump didn't explicitly say "you will not get the money until you publicly announce the investigation into the Bidens".

Even if Trump was video taped admitting the crime you Trumpers would still defend Trump and claim he did nothing wrong. It truly is a cult.

[NYPat]

You don't even comprehend what statistics were used as a sample to create the statistic. Who did they interview? What is their political affiliation? Where do they live? Where do they work? How much money do they make? What party affiliation do their families belong to? You don't even know if they counted the votes correctly.

You take five hundred random people, and extrapolate it to create a "statistic", and you're not following why this is retarded?

Edit: I forgot to add the human condition: People make last minute, knee-jerk reactions too. However they feel at the time of taking a poll, they could see one thing in the news next week and flip-flop.

It's not something to be putting your faith in. And not only does it simply confirm someone's bias, but it also encourages the "bandwagon" mentality for the sheep followers, instead of independent thought.

Well the only polls Trump believes are the Rassmussen polls that show his approval ratings at 50%. So whatever methodology they use apparently should be used for all polls because clearly everything is else wrong.

[BearyManilowe]

Well the only polls Trump believes are the Rassmussen polls that show his approval ratings at 50%. So whatever methodology they use apparently should be used for all polls because clearly everything is else wrong.

You know that you guys are the only ones pointing at other polls, right?

Isn't this thread about the impeachment hearings? Havent you derailed it enough?

[Judgment]

Well the only polls Trump believes are the Rassmussen polls that show his approval ratings at 50%. So whatever methodology they use apparently should be used for all polls because clearly everything is else wrong.

Trump isn't all-mighty to me. I support him but I think he's equally fukking douchey for using them.

[Austanian]

You don't even comprehend what statistics were used as a sample to create the statistic. Who did they interview? What is their political affiliation? Where do they live? Where do they work? How much money do they make? What party affiliation do their families belong to? You don't even know if they counted the votes correctly.

You take five hundred random people, and extrapolate it to create a "statistic", and you're not following why this is retarded?

Edit: I forgot to add the human condition: People make last minute, knee-jerk reactions too. However they feel at the time of taking a poll, they could see one thing in the news next week and flip-flop.

It's not something to be putting your faith in. And not only does it simply confirm someone's bias, but it also encourages the "bandwagon" mentality for the sheep followers, instead of independent thought.

SMH. This is exactly what I am talking about. You don't know the first fuking thing about statistics and run your mouth.

If I wanted to be 95% confident that I was manufacturing bolts with in appropriate tolerances how many sample units would I need if I am making 70 million units?

385 randomized units. That is all.

Now maybe I offer a guarantee on units and want to be 99% confident on those units.

All I need is 664.

If you can't understand that you have ZERO basis critiquing the controls the statisticians put in place. Now there are many arguments you can have about sample size requirements, controls, and assumptions made. However, those are not the arguments you are putting forth.

Go take this course: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability Get a basic understanding of how things work then come back and have this discussion. Realize that you just took the equivalent of a 200 level course and might not understand everything, but at least you would be critiquing the right things...

Grow you knowledge. From where I sit you are the counterbalance on the right to Sillie. Not a place you want to be.

[chalup]

Uh oh looks like Taylor or Holmes is lying based on his closed door depositions. Was only a matter of time before this started cracking. Lets see if retard Schit postpones the televised hearings this week.

[BearyManilowe]

SMH. This is exactly what I am talking about. You don't know the first fuking thing about statistics and run your mouth.

If I wanted to be 95% confident that I was manufacturing bolts with in appropriate tolerances how many sample units would I need if I am making 70 million units?

385 randomized units. That is all.

Now maybe I offer a guarantee on units and want to be 99% confident on those units.

All I need is 664.

If you can't understand that you have ZERO basis critiquing the controls the statisticians put in place. Now there are many arguments you can have about sample size requirements, controls, and assumptions made. However, those are not the arguments you are putting forth.

Go take this course: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability Get a basic understanding of how things work then come back and have this discussion. Realize that you just took the equivalent of a 200 level course and might not understand everything, but at least you would be critiquing the right things...

Grow you knowledge. From where I sit you are the counterbalance on the right to Sillie. Not a place you want to be.

TIL automated manufacturing is the same as polling humans for emotional feels.

Not being able to look at the information at hand is a common drawback people fall victim to.

[rampagefc77]

Uh oh looks like Taylor or Holmes is lying based on his closed door depositions. Was only a matter of time before this started cracking. Lets see if retard Schit postpones the televised hearings this week.

The other thing coming out is how skeptical people were of vindman. People viewed him as untrustworthy, as a leaker, as someone who was going directly against the orders he was supposed to follow.

#starwitness

[SaltyDog920]

So Trump, all by himself, decides to stop the aid and then has his people tell Zelensky you're only going to get to speak to Trump if you talk about the Bidens, and Trump says I'm going to need you to do me a favor though, and you don't think it's evidence because Trump didn't explicitly say "you will not get the money until you publicly announce the investigation into the Bidens".

Even if Trump was video taped admitting the crime you Trumpers would still defend Trump and claim he did nothing wrong. It truly is a cult.

LMAO...again, show me where he said "I'll withhold aid unless you investigate the Bidens". Please, share a link where this is stated.

Again, we have 3 hard pieces of evidence: 1 - The transcripts vindicate Trump as there was no explicit quid pro quo. 2 - Zelensky also explicitly stated that there was no quid pro quo. 3 - The aid was released within the allotted timeline without the "mythical" investigation into the Bidens.

3 hard pieces of evidence all vindicate Trump yet here you are crying about the transcripts while REFUSING to show me where Trump threatened to withhold aid and screaming about hearsay and ignoring hard evidence. Your autism is taking over. You should probably cry for a perma ban again.

[Darkhare]

I dont know how but these lefty losers have made this thread less bearable than the actual impeachment


Stats and polls. Wtf?

Let's talk about the process and evidence.


Evidence trump broke the law = none
Witnesses feelings = kinda hurt at times


President come 2020? TRUMP