Most terrifying poll result I've ever seen

I agree.

I'm also an observer of how successful people think and what they use to achieve success. Many people think of tools and devices like a hammer or scalpel; I also think of tools as mental devices you use to help you reason and comprehend the challenges of life and our endeavors.

This morning I ran across a quote that seemed to be very appropriate as applied to many people now in positions to affect our lives- people with power, but short in the capacity to use it wisely.

That quote:



Power is a tool. Unfortunately, if that fool is in a position of power... that makes him dangerous.

 

GOP President
GOP VP
GOP ATTY GEN
GOP FBI Director
GOP US attorneys...

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to all those Democratic Trump appointees?

 

So do people who FAKE polls. It's just a matter of reading a real poll, copying the most extreme result that satisfied your bias. The margin of error (which you call "margin of accuracy") is a mathematical formula that takes into account factors like the number of people polled, the population, characteristics of the sample, ... etc (stuff from my statistics class that I have long time ago put way behind in my memory). You make up those characteristics, then you apply the formula, and THAT number will be the ONLY verifiable result. But it's one that is based on numbers you made up. So the margin of error, in and of itself, is not relevant as to any answers people might have actually given. You can make all those up, and no calculation will detect the r
ruse.

In this case, you describe a discombobulated pseudo-scientific road to obtain a result that could have been answered directly by asking just TWO simple questions. Which I listed in my original post. Why would anybody do that if not to deceive? And when you see "Rasmussen" attached to it, there can be no doubt as to why.

 

You seem to have trouble with the idea that this poll covered a wide variety of questions; it was not conceived to measure this issue- that result was a surprise to the company. The poll having a wide base of people and questions allows it to be used to extract a lot of data, and in many ways do cross referencing to improve the accuracy of the data. The fact you do not like one of the answers says nothing about the process- that speaks to you, and your displeasure at a poll revealing something you don't want to believe. Guess what? You are free to not believe. However, not free to tell others it's a fraud because you don't like it. That's crossing the line between your opinion, and the effort to discredit others who don't agree with you. The left has virtually made that a universal strategy, so we see it a lot with no regard to validity of the questions it applies to. If it's anti-Trump, it's good, if it's not it's bad. That's the metric. That's a bad metric- for everyone. Goes against common sense and values.

Funny, you will speak to throw out a poll that only reflects public view but controls nothing.... But accept an election that smelled like skunk from the beginning, and put a puppet in power that is destroying the viability of the nation. The result is clear, the cause is clear- but you don't see a problem.

How is that possible? I know, but I won't expand on it.

 

No. I'm troubled by the fact that it required a huge variety of questions AND a lot of twisting, turning, tap dancing... to end up supposedly answering one that was NOT asked.

 

When Trump called up a Secretary of State and demanded more votes so he could win, do you think that had ANYTHING to do with fair elections?

When Trump threatened Pence, stating that if Pence certified the election, it would be the end of Pence's political career, do you think that had anything to do with fair elections?

When MAGA worked to create false electors, was that in support of fair elections?

I agree with your stated fear.

And, it's very clear why it is of serious concern.

 

Come on, you are smarter than that. A poll collects data, and the data answers questions that were not asked. It didn't ask how many people believed in something- only if the respondent did.
The sum of the data answers the question about percentages.

And that isn't the only question they sought to answer. A comprehensive poll can address many things- and often the results are boring and unsurprising. But sometimes, they reveal truths or levels of beliefs that are surprising. Again, this wasn't the objective of the poll- it was a surprise result.
I'm sure you could have saved them the trouble if you had just sent them your opinion in advance, so they could ignore everyone else.
This is why when you say you do your research- I chuckle.

 

So you don't understand that its about WHAT trump said, not that he said it.

 

Trump did not refuse to give up power. He simply, with reasonable suspicion, contested an election as is done all the time.

 

Have you READ your post? Read it! It's complete nonsense! Instead of asking that question, they extrapolate the number of liberals from a whacky set of assumptions based.

And they are not even SANE assumptions. The top 1% receive tax breaks from REPUBLICANS. So if you're going to ASSUME who would respond that way, you would think it's the portion of the top 1% (or even the top 10%... whatever portion benefits from the tax breaks) that DOESN'T want to give up their tax breaks. Now... don't try to argue this, because I'm not assuming this. It's just an example. I would not assume it, because there is nothing in the numbers you gave that leads one to reach the conclusion that you arbitrarily drew from it. I don't know if it was you or Rasmussen who drew that arbitrary conclusion, but the political bias is obvious, and very typical of Rasmussen.

It's just plain garbage.

 

Never has an election been contested by inciting an insurrection and then doing nothing to stop it when it became violent, an instead rejoicing about the violence. Trump is the only one. In fact, most of the time elections are contested by the losing candidate in a much weaker way than they SHOULD have been contested, just so not to cause something like what Trump DID produce.

 

But then, everything you don't want to hear is garbage. That's SOP for you.
I don't think you have any idea how often you shoot yourself down.

 

Assumptions over assumptions, especially when pretending to be a serious statistical analysis, are garbage. EVERY time. Whether I "want" to hear it or not.

 

You are just blowing fantasy fairy dust all over the place.

 

James Carville says that looking at Bribed Joe's poll numbers is like seeing grandma naked.

The privileged elite are fine with Bribed Joe stealing another election.

 

This lady has an explanation:

Woman Who Went Viral For Hugging Trump At Chick-Fil-A Explains Why Black Voters Support Him

"They feel like he’s honest..."

She's got Joe Biden nailed as a lying racist snake, who pushed the 1993 crime bill that locked up Blacks, some of which are incarcerated to this day.

“They just feel like he’s more relatable,” Ms. Montgomery added. “They really feel like this is somebody who’s talking to them and not just saying what they want to hear.”

 

Have you ever felt you have been conned, set up?

 

Uh-Oh! LOL

'Trump's Fake "Grassroots" Chick-fil-A Operative Works for Anti-MLK Advocate Charlie Kirk'

'MAGA Republicans held up Michaelah Montgomery as an example of grassroots Black voter support'

'As it turns out, Trump's fake "grassroots" Chick-fil-A operative is linked to Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens. MAGA Republican accounts and pro-Trump media have been using the viral hug at Chick-fil-A between Trump and Michaelah Montgomery to claim Trump is enjoying popular support among Black voters.


EXCLUSIVE: Trump's Viral Hug At Chick-fil-A Was With a MAGA Operative
Read More
Blexit is an organization founded by Candace Owens in an attempt to get Black voters to join the Republican Party and vote for Trump.


Charlie Kirk's Director of Black Outreach Approved MLK Attack And Came Out Against Black History Month
Read More
Blexit was absorbed by Turning Point USA who dissolved its conservative Black leadership boards and now reports to Blexit Director Pierre Wilson who works for Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk.

• 
  

Blexit state director Michaelah Montgomery at the Georgia Senate

Facebook

keep going, it only gets better!
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/tr...tive-works-for-anti-mlk-advocate-charlie-kirk

 

So a photo op plant to gas light how much minorities luv them some Agent Oranges authoritarianism? Color me shocked, shocked I say!

And they wonder why the red wave never materializes.....too funny!

 

The "red wave" has arrived.
The Republican's 2024 campaign has turned into a bloodbath, Trump style.

 

A Reliable Voting Bloc For Decades, Minorities Now Look For Alternatives To Democrats

"For the black community in general, they have been lied to consistently..."

They also know all about corrupt prosecutors, crooked judges, and kangaroo courts.

'An April poll from The Wall Street Journal shows that 30 percent of black men in battleground states intend to vote for Donald Trump. Hispanic voters who lean Republican are approaching parity with those who lean Democrat.'

'A similar shift occurred among Asian-American voters. Some 30 percent of Asian Americans voted Republican in 2020 according to Gallup. That’s up from 18 percent in 2016, according to exit polling. In California, the shift was even more pronounced with 54 percent of Asian American voters favoring Trump in 2020 according to the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.'

'Biden can’t hide from this economy, and minorities are losing trust in it,” Charlie Kolean of the R.E.D. political action committee told The Epoch Times. “Minorities see that big government is no longer helping them but hurting them.”'

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...es-minorities-now-look-alternatives-democrats

 

Because the goal should be zero, not 5000 per day.

 

So all or nothing. Got it.

 

Rasmussen is a notorious outlier poll. They conduct polls by online surveys and landlines. They ask leading questions. Leading questions will ALWAYS skew results. And as far as being mostly left? That doesn't square with reality, most landline owners are elderly and republican.

And, their methodology, the question they are asking is a leading question, on many levels it is leading, from the unreality 'won't get caught' to the 'your candidate'. This is not a professional caliber pollster.

A good poll does NOT ask leading questions.

A non leading question would be:

Would you support a candidate cheating to win in an election?

DO not mention party, do not mention 'if your guy was losing' do not mention "your guy can't get caught'. these are leading questions. A kind of intellectual entrapment. Hell, they aren't even allowed in a court of law. This is not a reliable pollster. Rasmussen clearly has an agenda, which is the death knell for a pollster.

 

The goal should be increasing the amount of legal immigration which comports to the actual needs of the United States.

But, with xenophobes, they have no clue as to what those needs are.