[akyan]

Polling data is wrong usually, remember Polling data showed Camela was going to win.

I feel like they just go to the protests and ask people how they feel, then say look at this! overwhelming support for the anti ice movements.

[Tom[PL]]

Stupid bitch went to the ground. Move on. Nobody cares.

[Patriot666]

Some seriously biased moderation in here. Typical liberal tactics to silence opposing views.

[Vampyre]

Originally Posted by quetza ↗

Also, why is this video even on here but to stir up political rants and raves (see above). This is YouTube-quality "violence"...in fact, this shit wouldn't even need to be censored on YouTube its so lacking in violence and gore.

It's gore, that's why it's on here. People are making it political. And no lol, this wouldn't be allowed on YouTube. Especially the pictures.

[Killgaad]

Originally Posted by Tom[PL] ↗

Stupid bitch went to the ground. Move on. Nobody cares.

You despicable, subhuman, inhuman, Nazi piece of shit.

People do care—you fascist filth.

That was an extrajudicial execution.

She was murdered, you sick fuck.

Fuck you in Hell.

[Dream_Trawler]

The real war is between the ultra-rich and everyone else. While we are fighting over race/immigration stuff, they are extracting as much wealth as possible while leaving us fighting for scraps and placing blame on each other.

[ewnasssty]

Oh jeez, oh man, oh no I can't believe it

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by akyan ↗

Polling data is wrong usually, remember Polling data showed Camela was going to win.

I feel like they just go to the protests and ask people how they feel, then say look at this! overwhelming support for the anti ice movements.

That's an absurdly reductive take on a rather complex process.

No, 'polling data' is not 'usually wrong.' There are strong polling techniques and weak ones. Weak ones will be erroneous more often than strong ones. Neither are infallible, but neither are intrinsically fallible, either.

Polling methods are in a state of slow transition that does not yet fully reflect the changes in technology and information dissemination that have been prevalent in the past decade.

First, the way we communicate has fundamentally changed the landscape of polling. Voicemail, caller ID, and a general preference to avoid unknown callers have gradually made traditional telephone interviews increasingly challenging.

Secondly, in-person interviews, another method from a bygone era, are a rarity. They have become increasingly expensive and impractical due to logistical and financial constraints.

Using internet survey panels and signups is easier and quicker than either of the above, but can result in a pretty fucked up sample group if not handled carefully. Moreso, it relies on people actually being interested in the topic at hand enough to sign up for selection in the poll.

So yes, the results are going to skew if you're leaving out lazy fucktards who don't vote or care about their country falling apart. If only people with strong opinions about the government, for example, sign up to participate in polls, you're likely to get far more polarized answers.

If you can get a clean and diverse sample facilitated by a neutral third party (as almost all in-house polling is inherently flawed), the results can still be broadly reliable.

But even with a sample that reflects only the target group's level of political efficacy, there is still some merit. The flaws only surface if the lazy cockstains who didn't bother to sign up for or answer the polls decide to get less lazy at the ballot box. Or in the streets.

Simply approaching any data with the juvenilely cynical mindset of 'polling data is usually wrong' so it should be ignored is just as lazy and irresponsible as not answering polls or not voting.

Polling is a tool. No tool is infallible. Polling is a vulnerable tool in the current state of the world, so more fallible than prior, but still a valid tool. As with most things, try doping a little research and applying a little critical thought instead of just taking it at face value. Follow the source of the polling agency, who commissioned the poll and who conducted it. Reference the sample size and demographic. Trust, but verify.

[akyan]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

That's an absurdly reductive take on a rather complex process.

No, 'polling data' is not 'usually wrong.' There are strong polling techniques and weak ones. Weak ones will be erroneous more often than strong ones. Neither are infallible, but neither are intrinsically fallible, either.

Polling methods are in a state of slow transition that does not yet fully reflect the changes in technology and information dissemination that have been prevalent in the past decade.

First, the way we communicate has fundamentally changed the landscape of polling. Voicemail, caller ID, and a general preference to avoid unknown callers have gradually made traditional telephone interviews increasingly challenging.

Secondly, in-person interviews, another method from a bygone era, are a rarity. They have become increasingly expensive and impractical due to logistical and financial constraints.

Using internet survey panels and signups is easier and quicker than either of the above, but can result in a pretty fucked up sample group if not handled carefully. Moreso, it relies on people actually being interested in the topic at hand enough to sign up for selection in the poll.

So yes, the results are going to skew if you're leaving out lazy fucktards who don't vote or care about their country falling apart. If only people with strong opinions about the government, for example, sign up to participate in polls, you're likely to get far more polarized answers.

If you can get a clean and diverse sample facilitated by a neutral third party (as almost all in-house polling is inherently flawed), the results can still be broadly reliable.

But even with a sample that reflects only the target group's level of political efficacy, there is still some merit. The flaws only surface if the lazy cockstains who didn't bother to sign up for or answer the polls decide to get less lazy at the ballot box. Or in the streets.

Simply approaching any data with the juvenilely cynical mindset of 'polling data is usually wrong' so it should be ignored is just as lazy and irresponsible as not answering polls or not voting.

Polling is a tool. No tool is infallible. Polling is a vulnerable tool in the current state of the world, so more fallible than prior, but still a valid tool. As with most things, try doping a little research and applying a little critical thought instead of just taking it at face value. Follow the source of the polling agency, who commissioned the poll and who conducted it. Reference the sample size and demographic. Trust, but verify.

You just wrote an essay explaining my point. Specially when bias news organizations or platforms claiming the outcome a "polling".

You are an educated and intelligent individual, who's been here for a long time. Yet it is apparent you have bias views which you express in the same way those on the opposing views passionately express. In doing so the message you send biased tone.

Like calling me out on a simple statement then adding phrases like "if you're leaving out lazy fucktards who don't vote or care about their country falling apart." Which I assume you are referring to people who disagree with you politically. I think your logic driven paragraph just got derailed. I do agree with all your points, but that includes extremist on both sides.

Maybe it's this topic, like the Kirk shooting topic is going off the rails. Its far passed the facts in a police shooting, it's now a fight to the death between two opposing political ideologies.

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by akyan ↗

Like calling me out on a simple statement then adding phrases like "if you're leaving out lazy fucktards who don't vote or care about their country falling apart." Which I assume you are referring to people who disagree with you politically. I think your logic driven paragraph just got derailed. I do agree with all your points, but that includes extremist on both sides.

No. I was referring to the 90 MILLION eligible voters in the US who did not vote at all in the 2025 election. The ones that sat on their ass and did nothing. More people stayed home than voted for either candidate.

I will stipulate, correctly I imagine, that if they are too lazy, apathetic, or cynical to actually vote in the election, they are also not contributing voluntarily to polls which is why I brought them up in this discussion. They may have opinions about the political situation in the country, but their opinions are worthless and contemptible if they do not contribute to the democratic process. Any polling done that does not include lazy, apathetic layabouts in their sample is going to be limited in scope. Not necessarily 'wrong', but limited without further context.

And I was doing far more than just restating your point. Your post, that all polling is usually wrong, is reductive and inaccurate. I attempted to clarify it for you and provide substantiating data as to how and why your generalization was weak and inappropriate.

It has fuck-all to do with any 'bias' or my political opinion at all. What the hell 'bias' are you carrying on about? My entire post had to do with the polling process. Objectively. It doesn't matter if it is polling a presidential candidate or whether people think the sky is green or blue. My personal feelings on ANYthing are utterly irrelevant to this conversation. It's weird that you keep referring to my political stance when it has no bearing on the efficacy of polling. Polling itself is not intrinsically a partisan tool.

Neither is it a perfect tool. It is, in its current state, a less useful one than it was 15 years ago. I explained the reasons for that. Nowhere did I indicate or cede that it was, as you said, 'usually wrong.' It is still a useful tool especially with a neutral poll that is not commissioned and/or conducted by a specific political party. It still provides useful information if you chase down the metrics and data then parse it for yourself.

Just like all the halfwits posting links in this thread from garbage agencies like FOX or CNN, if you want to get useful data from a poll, you verify it for yourself and adjust your expectations accordingly. Millions of people just regurgitating mainstream media outlets (or fringe media outlets for that matter) and not conducting any independent verification on anything is a large part of why we're where we are at today. Polling is no different.