TRUMP VOTERS TRUST INFOWARS AS MUCH AS THE NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST, POLL SHOWS

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
Carpy
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4199
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 5:26 am

Unread post

NYT and WaPo are about as full of shit as Infowars.
Libbylu2
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3107
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:53 pm

Unread post

Mother_of_Dragons wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:20 am
A new poll from YouGov/The Economist released this week showed folks who voted for Trump in 2016 trust Infowars—the infamous conspiracy site headed by Alex Jones—about as much as the Post or Times.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-t ... ll-1331958
Omg
Things get worse with every day!!
That’s really discouraging, isn’t it?
But I’m not surprised.
We see replies here all the time that sound like Alex Jones and Infowars.
Gahhhhh...😳😝
Libbylu2
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3107
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:53 pm

Unread post

Carpy wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:07 pm NYT and WaPo are about as full of sh*t as Infowars.
They’re both highly rated and known for accuracy and honesty.

But Definitely Not Infowars. Alex Jones could use therapy .
User avatar
jas
Donated
Donated
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8092
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 8:33 am
Location: This space for rent

Unread post

Aletheia wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:50 pm
jas wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:05 pm FFS... Like the few dumbasses they polled is everyone who voted for Trump. Some of you people have such narrow minds it's surprising you don't suffer from a stroke.
What do you know about how sample size relates to confidence intervals, in polling?
From the posted article...

"The poll from YouGov/The Economist surveyed 1,500 U.S. adults from February 10 through February 12. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. "

1,500 people. Out of HOW many Trump supporters, people who voted for Trump or just people in general? You can not accurately make that claim based on a mere 1500 people. It's asinine.
User avatar
SouthernIslander
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm
Location: Texassippi

Unread post

ReadingRainbow wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:28 am Haha who else saw that guy slap Alex Jones on his show?

Hilarious.
I must google this. 😂😂😂😂
Lemons
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 11250
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm

Unread post

Carpy wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:07 pm NYT and WaPo are about as full of shit as Infowars.
Here's our example for anyone who couldn't believe that there are in fact people in this country putting infowars on par or lower than reputable news sources. How long until this damage is done.
User avatar
Aletheia
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 8:44 pm
Location: England

Unread post

jas wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:46 pm
Aletheia wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:50 pm
jas wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:05 pm FFS... Like the few dumbasses they polled is everyone who voted for Trump. Some of you people have such narrow minds it's surprising you don't suffer from a stroke.
What do you know about how sample size relates to confidence intervals, in polling?
From the posted article...

"The poll from YouGov/The Economist surveyed 1,500 U.S. adults from February 10 through February 12. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. "

1,500 people. Out of HOW many Trump supporters, people who voted for Trump or just people in general? You can not accurately make that claim based on a mere 1500 people. It's asinine.
Cochran’s Sample Size Formula

The Cochran formula allows you to calculate an ideal sample size given a desired level of precision, desired confidence level, and the estimated proportion of the attribute present in the population.

Cochran’s formula is considered especially appropriate in situations with large populations. A sample of any given size provides more information about a smaller population than a larger one, so there’s a ‘correction’ through which the number given by Cochran’s formula can be reduced if the whole population is relatively small.

The Cochran formula is:

Image

Where:

e is the desired level of precision (i.e. the margin of error),
p is the (estimated) proportion of the population which has the attribute in question,
q is 1 – p.
The z-value is found in a Z table.

Cochran’s Formula Example
Suppose we are doing a study on the inhabitants of a large town, and want to find out how many households serve breakfast in the mornings. We don’t have much information on the subject to begin with, so we’re going to assume that half of the families serve breakfast: this gives us maximum variability. So p = 0.5. Now let’s say we want 95% confidence, and at least 5 percent—plus or minus—precision. A 95 % confidence level gives us Z values of 1.96, per the normal tables, so we get

((1.96)2 (0.5) (0.5)) / (0.05)2 = 385.

So a random sample of 385 households in our target population should be enough to give us the confidence levels we need.

Modification for the Cochran Formula for Sample Size Calculation In Smaller Populations
If the population we’re studying is small, we can modify the sample size we calculated in the above formula by using this equation:




Here n0 is Cochran’s sample size recommendation, N is the population size, and n is the new, adjusted sample size. In our earlier example, if there were just 1000 households in the target population, we would calculate

385 / (1+( 384 / 1000 )) = 278

So for this smaller population, all we need are 278 households in our sample; a substantially smaller sample size.
Or watch https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statis ... statistics
User avatar
jas
Donated
Donated
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8092
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 8:33 am
Location: This space for rent

Unread post

Aletheia wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:15 am
jas wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:46 pm
Aletheia wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:50 pm

What do you know about how sample size relates to confidence intervals, in polling?
From the posted article...

"The poll from YouGov/The Economist surveyed 1,500 U.S. adults from February 10 through February 12. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. "

1,500 people. Out of HOW many Trump supporters, people who voted for Trump or just people in general? You can not accurately make that claim based on a mere 1500 people. It's asinine.
Cochran’s Sample Size Formula

The Cochran formula allows you to calculate an ideal sample size given a desired level of precision, desired confidence level, and the estimated proportion of the attribute present in the population.

Cochran’s formula is considered especially appropriate in situations with large populations. A sample of any given size provides more information about a smaller population than a larger one, so there’s a ‘correction’ through which the number given by Cochran’s formula can be reduced if the whole population is relatively small.

The Cochran formula is:

Image

Where:

e is the desired level of precision (i.e. the margin of error),
p is the (estimated) proportion of the population which has the attribute in question,
q is 1 – p.
The z-value is found in a Z table.

Cochran’s Formula Example
Suppose we are doing a study on the inhabitants of a large town, and want to find out how many households serve breakfast in the mornings. We don’t have much information on the subject to begin with, so we’re going to assume that half of the families serve breakfast: this gives us maximum variability. So p = 0.5. Now let’s say we want 95% confidence, and at least 5 percent—plus or minus—precision. A 95 % confidence level gives us Z values of 1.96, per the normal tables, so we get

((1.96)2 (0.5) (0.5)) / (0.05)2 = 385.

So a random sample of 385 households in our target population should be enough to give us the confidence levels we need.

Modification for the Cochran Formula for Sample Size Calculation In Smaller Populations
If the population we’re studying is small, we can modify the sample size we calculated in the above formula by using this equation:




Here n0 is Cochran’s sample size recommendation, N is the population size, and n is the new, adjusted sample size. In our earlier example, if there were just 1000 households in the target population, we would calculate

385 / (1+( 384 / 1000 )) = 278

So for this smaller population, all we need are 278 households in our sample; a substantially smaller sample size.
Or watch https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statis ... statistics
I am aware how stats work. I do not agree. If they worded it as "Most Trump supporters POLLED" but they did not. They made a broad claim based on 1500 people. Asinine.
User avatar
Aletheia
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 8:44 pm
Location: England

Unread post

jas wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:34 am I am aware how stats work. I do not agree. If they worded it as "Most Trump supporters POLLED" but they did not. They made a broad claim based on 1500 people. Asinine.
True, instead of saying:
Fifteen percent of Trump voters found Infowars trustworthy to some degree—4 percent "very trustworthy" and 11 percent "trustworthy."
They could have said:
Fifteen percent of of the sample of Trump voters we polled found Infowars trustworthy to some degree—4 percent "very trustworthy" and 11 percent "trustworthy."
or even:
The odds are lower than 1 in 20 that it is not the case that fifteen percent of Trump voters find Infowars trustworthy to some degree, given the size of sample we polled and the results we obtained from polling them.

But do you really find it particular misleading that they simplified it, for their readers? After all, they did provide the explanation lower down, for those interested in the details.
User avatar
jas
Donated
Donated
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8092
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 8:33 am
Location: This space for rent

Unread post

Aletheia wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:08 pm
jas wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:34 am I am aware how stats work. I do not agree. If they worded it as "Most Trump supporters POLLED" but they did not. They made a broad claim based on 1500 people. Asinine.
True, instead of saying:
Fifteen percent of Trump voters found Infowars trustworthy to some degree—4 percent "very trustworthy" and 11 percent "trustworthy."
They could have said:
Fifteen percent of of the sample of Trump voters we polled found Infowars trustworthy to some degree—4 percent "very trustworthy" and 11 percent "trustworthy."
or even:
The odds are lower than 1 in 20 that it is not the case that fifteen percent of Trump voters find Infowars trustworthy to some degree, given the size of sample we polled and the results we obtained from polling them.

But do you really find it particular misleading that they simplified it, for their readers? After all, they did provide the explanation lower down, for those interested in the details.

It's Newsweek. I don't expect much.
Locked Previous topicNext topic