How social media creates angry, poorly informed partisans - Vox

 

After reading through this I have definitely seen a lot of this get worse since the mass adoption of social media.

How social media creates angry, poorly informed partisans - Vox

 

After reading through this I have definitely seen a lot of this get worse since the mass adoption of social media.

I read about half of the article because it was obviously very misleading in trying to refute allegations that polls are often deliberately biased through oversampling for political purposes.

 

In my opinion, the last polls taken before an election are generally the most accurate. The reason is that those polls are the ones that pollsters tout to sell their services for future campaigns. The polling firm that most accurately predicts the outcome on election day will prosper much more than the firm that is least accurate.

 

The polls that matter are those taken in the months and weeks leading up to the election, because those polls can be used to shape public perception of the candidates. To compare the results of the final polls to the actual results of the election as proof of a lack of bias, which is what the author of the Vox article did, is disingenuous.

 

I understand that pollsters may deliberately over sample specific demographic groups and then correctly weight the results to more accurately reflect likely voter population - but comparing the overall results of the last polls taken before the election to the actual election results does not prove that polls taken earlier were realistically weighted to reflect likely turnout.

 

The author seems to be lying with statistics to disprove allegations that certain pollsters lie with statistics. In some ways, polls are like computer rankings for sports teams. They are often wildly inaccurate in the early months of the season because of what theGuru calls the "magic number" assumptions, but most of them are pretty accurate by the end of the season.

 

The difference is that bias can be deliberately injected into political polls to drive the news cycle and to shape public perception of how a campaign is going. Poll numbers may also affect the amount of campaign contributions that the candidates are able to raise, so there are some considerable incentives for companies paying for the polls to bias their results. That financial and political incentive to cheat is not present for computer rankings.

There is quite a bit more in there than just polls.

There is quite a bit more in there than just polls.

The first half of the article was misleading, either intentionally so or because of the ignorance of the author. I saw no reason to read any further.

The first half of the article was misleading, either intentionally so or because of the ignorance of the author. I saw no reason to read any further.

 

Which further plays into exactly what the article was saying.

Which further plays into exactly what the article was saying.

If the author wanted to make a point with polling skeptics, then he should have been honest with readers. I do not see where he made a point at all. It's like a witness on the stand, if they are caught lying under oath, then jurors may dismiss whatever else he has to say.

 

I agree that Trump's assertions that the election is fixed and all of the polls that are unfavorable to him are deliberately biased is hogwash. But I also understand statistics well enough to conclude that the author is either dishonest or does not understand statistics.

 

With all of the polling that has been done during this campaign, there is ample data available for Trump to prove the polls are biased. Kellyanne Conway is a very knowledgeable pollster and she could easily assign a statistician to make that case. However, even if a neutral statistician announced that some polls were biased, the general population would be unable to follow the explanation of the details.

 

So, my issue is not with the argument that Trump should stop whining about biased polls - I agree that he should stop whining in general. My issue is the article to which you linked does not make an honest attempt to prove that Trump is wrong about bias in the polls.

 

Trump should stop complaining about things that are beyond his control. It is a waste of time. At this point in the campaign, whether polls are or are not biased makes no difference. Each side has their own internal polls, which should be more accurate than the public polls.

"The polls are wrong until they're right because of a liberal conspiracy, which I can't prove because everyone else is too innumerate to understand."

 

Pretty convincing. :lol2:

If the author wanted to make a point with polling skeptics, then he should have been honest with readers. I do not see where he made a point at all. It's like a witness on the stand, if they are caught lying under oath, then jurors may dismiss whatever else he has to say.

 

I agree that Trump's assertions that the election is fixed and all of the polls that are unfavorable to him are deliberately biased is hogwash. But I also understand statistics well enough to conclude that the author is either dishonest or does not understand statistics.

 

With all of the polling that has been done during this campaign, there is ample data available for Trump to prove the polls are biased. Kellyanne Conway is a very knowledgeable pollster and she could easily assign a statistician to make that case. However, even if a neutral statistician announced that some polls were biased, the general population would be unable to follow the explanation of the details.

 

So, my issue is not with the argument that Trump should stop whining about biased polls - I agree that he should stop whining in general. My issue is the article to which you linked does not make an honest attempt to prove that Trump is wrong about bias in the polls.

 

Trump should stop complaining about things that are beyond his control. It is a waste of time. At this point in the campaign, whether polls are or are not biased makes no difference. Each side has their own internal polls, which should be more accurate than the public polls.

 

Polls were just the lead in to the primary point, you seem fixated on numbers as opposed the sociological phenomena at play.

Social media forces outrage headlines in between cat videos and vacation pictures there a is a large group of Americans on both sides who will never look at a secondary source.

Social media forces outrage headlines in between cat videos and vacation pictures there a is a large group of Americans on both sides who will never look at a secondary source.

 

Well that's the reader's digest version.

Polls were just the lead in to the primary point, you seem fixated on numbers as opposed the sociological phenomena at play.

Okay. I read the rest of the very biased article to which you linked. Whatever time it took to finish, it was a waste, IMO. Was anything that the author said news to you, or did you post the link because it reinforced your existing opinion?

 

Social media has obviously contributed to the polarization of the electorate and the proliferation of conspiracy opinions. That is true on both sides of the political spectrum. I am more familiar with those supporting Trump because of my opposition to him throughout the primaries. Websites that were conservative or conservative-leaning pre-Trump, such as Drudge Report, Free Republic, and Breitbart were transformed into Trump propaganda mills.

 

However, websites like Democratic Underground, Media Matters, and Daily Kos have been polluting left-leaning minds for years with pro-Clinton propaganda.

 

Drudge is one of the best examples of biased Trump sites. His online polls for Trump's debates allowed some users to easily vote multiple times. Then Trump boasted that he won every single debate. His followers remind me of Ron Paul's supporters.

 

So, what I am saying is that the author opened with a very poor rebuttal of Trump's claim that polls are biased in Hillary's favor and then reported nothing new. I was right to quit reading after the opening few paragraphs were so misleading.

Social media forces outrage headlines in between cat videos and vacation pictures there a is a large group of Americans on both sides who will never look at a secondary source.

That is a very good nutshell summary of the article. Drudge has become the king of misleading headlines, but major media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post engage in the practice to a lesser extent. I find Drudge's headline mismatches entertaining sometimes, but the practice undermines his credibility.

Okay. I read the rest of the very biased article to which you linked. Whatever time it took to finish, it was a waste, IMO. Was anything that the author said news to you, or did you post the link because it reinforced your existing opinion?

 

Social media has obviously contributed to the polarization of the electorate and the proliferation of conspiracy opinions. That is true on both sides of the political spectrum. I am more familiar with those supporting Trump because of my opposition to him throughout the primaries. Websites that were conservative or conservative-leaning pre-Trump, such as Drudge Report, Free Republic, and Breitbart were transformed into Trump propaganda mills.

 

However, websites like Democratic Underground, Media Matters, and Daily Kos have been polluting left-leaning minds for years with pro-Clinton propaganda.

 

Drudge is one of the best examples of biased Trump sites. His online polls for Trump's debates allowed some users to easily vote multiple times. Then Trump boasted that he won every single debate. His followers remind me of Ron Paul's supporters.

 

So, what I am saying is that the author opened with a very poor rebuttal of Trump's claim that polls are biased in Hillary's favor and then reported nothing new. I was right to quit reading after the opening few paragraphs were so misleading.

 

The question is, who do you think I support?

 

Which way do you think I lean?

 

It is biased, there is no question on that at all. The initial tone makes that obvious, but it's relevant to pay attention to the fact that this sort of populism is worsened by this by the soapbox it gives everyone.

 

I suppose it is more the exasperation and that I have resigned myself to the fact that we more or less deserve whatever happens because we let these two candidates get to this point.

 

As I have said many times, I would almost welcome and instantaneous world ending event. We have earned it.

The question is, who do you think I support?

 

Which way do you think I lean?

 

It is biased, there is no question on that at all. The initial tone makes that obvious, but it's relevant to pay attention to the fact that this sort of populism is worsened by this by the soapbox it gives everyone.

 

I suppose it is more the exasperation and that I have resigned myself to the fact that we more or less deserve whatever happens because we let these two candidates get to this point.

 

As I have said many times, I would almost welcome and instantaneous world ending event. We have earned it.

We agree almost entirely, only I oppose the instantaneous destruction of the world. The position that in a democracy, people generally get the government that they deserve is one that I repeat often. By that measure, the American people deserve a very corrupt, ineffective government, with widespread poverty - and maybe some swarms of locusts thrown in for good measure.