Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Dutchling]

Don't 20 percent of the Americans believe Elvis is still alive? American polls don't really surprise me anymore

[GlyphGryph]

Most of these polls are unscientific. Remember that at LEAST 8% of Americans, when polled, choose the answer they think is most amusing rather than the correct one.

[Sindain]

Also, the articles says they polled 863 Americans, considering that is less then .000001% of the U.S population its pretty hard to say they had a large enough sample size to be credible   .

[Mictlantecuhtli]

100% of statistics are misinterpreted and reported sensationally.

[Frumple]

Untrue!

Some are never reported and/or interpreted.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Untrue!

Some are never reported and/or interpreted.

0% of statistics are made up on the internet.

[10ebbor10]

Also, the articles says they polled 863 Americans, considering that is less then .000001% of the U.S population its pretty hard to say they had a large enough sample size to be credible   .

Well, thanks to statistics, the total population size doesn't matter that much.  The size of the poll does, and while it's fairly small, the error margin should be limited.

[Frumple]

Providing it's a representative sample, anyway.

[Bauglir]

Providing it's a representative sample, anyway.

Fortunately we can do a poll to see what qualifies as a representative sample in the eyes of the average American.

[GreatJustice]

Also, the articles says they polled 863 Americans, considering that is less then .000001% of the U.S population its pretty hard to say they had a large enough sample size to be credible   .

That's not how statistics work.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Also, the articles says they polled 863 Americans, considering that is less then .000001% of the U.S population its pretty hard to say they had a large enough sample size to be credible   .

That's not how statistics work.

It's also entirely not how representative polls work but let's not split hairs and call the whole thing asanine, please. Unless you'd like to show me how a majority-republican group of 1k people having a 30% armed revolt sympathy is any way indicative of "Nearly 30% of Americans advocate for an armed rebellion"

[GreatJustice]

Also, the articles says they polled 863 Americans, considering that is less then .000001% of the U.S population its pretty hard to say they had a large enough sample size to be credible   .

That's not how statistics work.

It's also entirely not how representative polls work but let's not split hairs and call the whole thing asanine, please. Unless you'd like to show me how a majority-republican group of 1k people having a 30% armed revolt sympathy is any way indicative of "Nearly 30% of Americans advocate for an armed rebellion"

Okay, then they problem is that they picked an unrepresentative sample, an issue entirely different from having too small of a sample size.

[Morrigi]

I'd like to point out that RT generally does their research and has a bias very far removed from Fox News.

[bulborbish]

I'd like to point out that RT generally does their research and has a bias very far removed from Fox News.

At the same time, that seems a little weak, especially because you have the a few factors mentioned above.

The "Skew" factor: Some people just vote to troll the poll, mostly because they see it as a waste of time.

Reporter Bias: RT Times, regardless of what anyone wants to say, is extremely biased against the US government, as well with any governments that the US supports. Going to the original poll eliminates this issue, so most arguments will be coming from here.

Time Based Bias: The poll was conducted during a few "scandals" that went nowhere, placing it in a time where people suspected that the government was abusing it's power

Sample Size and Representation: Though they used a random sample, the fact that the sampled number is small means that any bias in the original sampling is amplified. At the very least, a population of a couple hundred million (since only adults were polled, as only voters were polled) needs a couple thousand to be a more representative sample.

   To add on to this, we need to see what other options were offered and their respective levels. We have Disagree, totaling 47%, Neither , totaling 18%, and Unsure, with 5%. 1% refused to answer. While one can assume that these are generalizations that are interpreted by the pollsters, the fact is that 70% of the country still is against armed revolution, ignoring other bias growing the pro-revolt side. With the margin of error 4.3%, I think it is safe to say that a Majority still follow this resolution.

Question Wording: The Question asked was worded;

"In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties"

The question creates an image in the mind of the reader that it is a patriotic cause, rather than the more neutral

"In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary to stop government encroachment on liberties"

which at least removes the personal identifier "our" and the hot word "protect" which implies an active entity deliberately going after liberty.
(Note: Neither is very unbiased, but with the topic it is difficult to avoid)

[/statisticsrant]

Anyway, like I said, I don't trust RT, and I haven't (and won't) spend the time looking at the source of the poll to determine levels of Bias against the government.

[Owlbread]

Mos Def has been forcefed in the same manner as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. He doesn't last long with it, I doubt I could.