"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>Do you trust Gallup, lojbab?
I don't trust any poll.
>Do you really think this poll wasn't biased?
I think it is less biased than anything you have ever written. But I
don't think any poll is particularly unbiased. Not that it matters,
since whether evolution is correct or not isn't subject to a poll.
>The Gallup Organization is one of the most biased mainstream American media
>source,
It isn't a media source, it is a polling group that gets hired by
media sources as well as others.
>The most egregious act that any person, agency, organization, or society
>could ever participate in is to LIE about the reason for the loss of 40
>million human lives. The worst crime committed by Gallup is their word
>mandering in their abortion poll.
(yawn) changing the subject again are you, since you can't win on
evolution.
>Even WORSE is that Gallup once had a section on their poll which showed that
>48% of Americans believe that abortion is *murder*. You KNOW there is
>something very, very wrong when 136 million Americans believe that the 40
>million babies killed in abortions were *murdered* by their very own
>government
The government did it? Har. I should think it was doctors and women
carrying fetuses.
>Forget what your opinion of abortion is.
Why should I?
>The simple fact that this many
>Americans view the policies of their very own government as *murder* of 40
>million potential fellow Americans is a horrendous thought.
I think that allowing you to blather on is murder too, and a truly
horrendous thought, but due to free speech, we have to put up with it.
>And why did Gallup willingly participate in a cover-up of the evidence?
Coverup, my eyebrow.
>Instead of presenting this evidence in an objective manner to the American
>public, they removed it from their web site. When asked 'why", they resonded
>"we don't change our web site around", and "we plan to start charging for
>people to view previous poll results".
So pay. They got tired of having you violate their copyright for
free, so they will make you pay for it.
>Why do other polls consistently show that 80-90% of Americans want spoken
>CHRISTIAN prayer in public schools, whereas theirs shows only 70% want
>"spoken" [not "spoken CHRISTIAN" ] prayer?
Who cares? It is unconstitutional even if 99.9% of people want it.
>Why are their sodomy polls so far off the mark? A Gallup Poll in 1999
>showed that only 43% of Americans opposed legalized "homosexual marriages",
>even though voters in state after state, before and after that poll,
>implemented "anti-gay marriages" statutes in numbers almost three quarters
>greater than Gallup predicted.
Nonsense. Since the states don't have gay marriage laws, there is no
need to pass any "anti-gay marriages: statutes. I suspect you've
pulled this factoid out of your strange orifice.
>In the last fifty years, their "polls" have consistently underestimated
>public support for Republicans and overestimated public support for
>Democrats
The November 5-6 2000 poll showed Bush beating Gore 47% to 45%. In
reality Gore won the popular vote 48.38% to 47.87%. So much for
"underestimating support for Republicans".
The bottom line is that if they were usually too far wrong in their
numbers, no one would pay them to do their polls.
>They estimated that Clinton would get 49% of the 1992 vote,
>but he got only 43.2%, an over-representation of 5.8%.
All the polls underestimated Perot. The percentage that they had for
Bush was only 1% off.
They estimated that
>Reagan would get only 47% of the 1980 vote, but he got 59.1%, an
>under-representation of 3.8%.
51%, not 59%. The latter was 1984, when Gallup was exactly on target.
Furthermore, while they were wrong, they were closer than the other
major polls.
Notice how you skipped other years that don't support you.
2000 I already gave. 1988 Gallup gave Bush 56% and he got 53%. 1984
they were right on the money 59% to 41%. 1976 they had Ford beating
Carter. 1972 they had Nixon 1% higher than he actually got. 1968 they
had Humphrey 1% lower than he actually got.
In the last years I get 1952, 1960, 1964, 1980, 1992, 1996 where they
were off in favor of the Democrats
1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 2000 where they were off in favor of the
Republicans, and 1984 where they were right on the money.
Looks like 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. You lose again,
nincompoop.
http://www.ncpp.org/1936-2000.htm
>Overall in the last fifty years this
>consistent media bias has added up to underestimating Republicans by 4.6%
>and overestimating Democrats by 7.3%, which is an 11.9% difference.
Invalid summary statistic. If the final tally is 50/50, and they
predict 51/49, that is a 1% error, but you would say that they were 1%
over for one and 1% under for the other, calling it a 2% difference.
>Yet
>Gallup proclaims that their polls are accurate to within plus or minus 2%--a
>claim which constitutes nothing less than consumer fraud.
Actually they don't claim this. You just don't understand what a
sampling error report means. Furthermore, a 12% difference over 113
elections is less than 1% per election, so you actually have supported
their claim. Cut it in half per the above-noted screwup on your part,
and their average error is under 1/2% per election.
>Why bother to pretend to be "unbiased"? Why pretend that they take a lot of
>pride in the "objectivity" of their polls?
Polls are inherently NOT objective.
>Even Christians who are obligated by the Holy
>Bible to uphold sodomy laws would answer "yes" to such a softball question.
The bottom line is that most Christians don't give a $%&* about
"upholding sodomy laws" since they've been repealed in virtually every
state that had them, with no repercussions from the electorate. And
actual voting trumps your silly polls every time.
lojbab
