I wouldn't call the data set "unusable", just have to be more careful about performing statistical analysis on it and reaching conclusions based on the results...

but some conclusions can still be drawn from it, for example that 6% or whatever he found to illegally vote is likely the lower bound of the actual fraud... so at LEAST 6% of illlegals vote... as the biases could only reasonably be expected to exclude "criminals", legal voters would have little reason to opt out of the poll or to lie...

No. You can't have it both ways. Is the data flawed because the respondents lie and self-select, OR can you use the data to draw conclusions?

IF you accept the data is relevant to your cause, then I will direct you back to the article:

"We begin with an example. Suppose a survey question is asked of 20,000 respondents, and that, of these persons, 19,500 have a given characteristic (e.g., are citizens) and 500 do not. Suppose that 99.9 percent of the time the survey question identifies correctly whether people have a given characteristic, and 0.1 percent of the time respondents who have a given characteristic incorrectly state that they do not have that characteristic. (That is, they check the wrong box by mistake.) That means, 99.9 percent of the time the question correctly classifies an individual as having a characteristic?such as being a citizen of the United States?and 0.1 percent of the time it classifies someone as not having a characteristic, when in fact they do. This rate of misclassification or measurement error is extremely low and would be tolerated by any survey researcher. It implies, however, that one expects 19 people out of 20,000 to be incorrectly classified as not having a given characteristic, when in fact they do.

Normally, this is not a problem. In the typical survey of 1,000 to 2,000 persons, such a low level of measurement error would have no detectable effect on the sample. Even in very large sample surveys, survey practitioners expect a very low level of measurement error would have effects that wash out between two categories. The non-citizen voting example highlights a potential pitfall with very large databases in the study of low frequency categories. Continuing with the example of citizenship and voting, the problem is that the citizen group is very large compared to the non-citizen group in the survey. So even if the classification is extremely reliable, a small classification error rate will cause the bigger category to influence analysis of the low frequency category is substantial ways. Misclassification of 0.1 percent of 19,500 respondents leads us to expect that 19 respondents who are citizens will be classified as non-citizens and 1 non-citizen will be classified as a citizen. (This is a statistical expectation?the actual numbers will vary slightly.) The one non-citizen classified as a citizen will have trivial effects on any analyses of the overall pool of people categorized as citizens, as that individual will be 1 of 19,481 respondents. However, the 19 citizens incorrectly classified as non-citizens can have significant effects on analyses, as they are 3.7 percent (19 of 519) of respondents who said they are non-citizens.

Such misclassifications can explain completely the observed low rate of a behavior, such as voting, among a relatively rare or low-frequency group, such as non-citizens. Suppose that 70 percent of those with a given characteristic (e.g., citizens) engage in a behavior (e.g., voting). Suppose, further, that none of the people without the characteristic (e.g., non-citizens) are allowed to engage in the behavior in question (e.g., vote in federal elections). Based on these suppositions, of the 19 misclassified people, we expect 13 (70%) to be incorrectly determined to be non-citizen voters while 0 correctly classified non-citizens would be voters. Hence, a 0.1 percent rate of misclassification?a very low level of measurement error?would lead researchers to expect to observe that 13 of 519 (2.8 percent) people classified as non-citizens voted in the election, when those results are due entirely to measurement error, and no non-citizens actually voted."

Oh noes! The MSM is fact checking the voter fraud claims! The world is ending!
Man Who Championed Claims of Widespread Voter Fraud Gets Brutally Embarrassed on CNN | Mediaite

You are amazing.

I live in LA, it's easy to get ID's and an SSN card here. PLus they're giving illegals California Drivers licenses and here in California, when you get a license, they make sure you are registered to vote, it's almost automatic. Thanks to Governor MoonBeam!

imagine this hypothetical scenario:

You ask a group of 1000 people in a room, "raise your hand if you cheated on your taxes last year".... 20 people raise their hands... what conclusions would a reasonable person draw from that? that at LEAST 20 people in the room cheated on their taxes... is it likely that actual number is higher, perhaps much higher? of course, as there is strong bias to under-report illegal activity...

now comes along some wise-guy professor, and he tries to muddy the water a bit with some statistical bs: "such misclassifications can explain completely the observed low rate of a behavior"... implying that there is no tax evasion, because 20 people could have made a mistake when they raised their hands...

it's possible, but lets be real here, what is more likely in this hypothetical scenario? that 20 people made a mistake and there is no tax evasion, or that out of 100 that cheated on their taxes only 20 raised their hands?

No. If 20 people indicate "Yes, I cheated on my taxes" that could mean that 10 of them misunderstood the question, 5 of them actually cheated, 3 of them were incorrect or were recorded incorrectly, and 2 of them actually did cheat. Of course, any of those numbers could be different. Now if you take these 20 people and extrapolate them to represent a population of millions, you are going to have a very bad time, as Richman had. If you had a far larger number of people instead of 20, say a number that was statistically relevant to your population size, then you should very well look farther into the issue with follow-up questions for those particular people to determine if they were entered in error or true responses.

Margin of Error Discussion: Understanding the margin of error in election polls | Pew Research Center

People Lying on Polls: Frequently asked questions | Pew Research Center
Do people lie to pollsters?

We know that not all survey questions are answered accurately, but it’s impossible to say that any given inaccurate answer necessarily involves lying. People may simply not remember their behavior accurately.

More people say they voted in a given election than voting records indicate actually cast ballots. In some instances, researchers have actually verified the voting records of people who were interviewed and found that some of them said they voted but did not. Voting is generally considered a socially desirable behavior, just like attending church or donating money to charity. Studies suggest these kinds of behaviors are overreported. Similarly, socially undesirable behaviors such as illegal drug use, certain kinds of sexual behavior or driving while intoxicated are underreported.

We take steps to minimize errors related to questions about socially desirable or undesirable activities. For example, questions about voter registration and voting usually acknowledge that not everyone takes part in elections. Pew Research Center’s voter registration question is worded this way:

“These days, many people are so busy they can’t find time to register to vote, or move around so often they don’t get a chance to re-register. Are you NOW registered to vote in your precinct or election district or haven’t you been able to register so far?”

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :thumbsup

and let´s not forget even his daughter vote twice in two different towns :1orglaugh


besides, whether Trump won or not, Hillary would have made the better president :2 cents:

We are probably both right, it just depends how one interprets the results, you I think lean towards believing there is little to no fraud and any study suggesting there is is just a statistical anomaly as described in the Harvard paper...

I on the other hand lean towards believing the fact that humans tend to under-report negative things, so any studies showing fraud underestimate actual fraud percentage greatly, making actual fraud no longer "low frequency" and so analysis described in the Harvard paper would no longer apply...

the real answer is probably somewhere in the middle, that there is some fraud, but the extent of it we'll likely never find out because of difficulties in obtaining accurate data set... :thumbsup

Dems cheated and STILL lost in a landslide!

So this study Trump is citing is from a known conservative conspiracy theorist who runs a mobile phone app. Nothing to see here.

Trump tweets voter fraud claim based on a shoddy app for conspiracy theorists - The Verge

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...ter-fraud.html

Why would anyone not scrutinize the data sources of someone who reads and believes the National Enquirer? I'm talking about your president you dipshits. He reads the National Enquirer and said they should get the Pulitzer prize. Your president is a fucking retard and you're not too far behind.

How you can come to that conclusion in this thread is just mind boggling.

No, that's a totally different guy who ended up admitting that he might be referencing the Richman study as his basis.

Well said! :banana:banana:banana

can we share her ?

better part-time of a beautifull smart woman then 100% of .....

:)

This guy was on CNN this morning and again just now.

He just admitted he hasn't called any of the 3 million "cheaters" to verify any data, not 1. And just admitted that he can verify for certain that any of them committed voter fraud based on his current "data".

So basically Trump is relying on a nuts word that 3 million illegals voted, not on ANY actual data.

Trump supporters are gonna get tired of this shit eventually.

Let's not forget that this guy said:
"Phillips has also said since November that the data will eventually be released to the public in a form that will allow people to identify specific voters Phillips claims voted improperly."
Some dude with an app gives Trump his voter fraud ideas.

Now, now, gentlemen! I prefer one at a time!

http://www.collegemagazine.com/wp-co...1d78c104_b.jpg

No, they will just move to the next new thing, then when that's proven wrong they go to the next. This happens 3 to 5 times, then they end up back at the 1st thing as if it were true again.

Elli is my GFY crush

100 alternative facts

Invading who?

not sure if China, but China´s certainly said if Trump continues, war is not far away :helpme

china is full of shit. what they gonna do stop selling lead painted toys to us?

:1orglaugh

FYI the difference in size & abilities between the armed forces is staggering. they wont do shit to USA with a nut like trump calling the shots. they can hurt the USA but USA would pulverize their military.

:2 cents:

God damn you are one stupid fuck :disgust

Trump CIA speech transcript - CBS News

First:
"And the generals are wonderful, and the fighting is wonderful. But if you give them the right direction, boy, does the fighting become easier. And, boy, do we lose so fewer lives, and win so quickly. And that?s what we have to do. "

And then:

"At a certain age, I remember hearing from one of my instructors, ?The United States has never lost a war.? And then, after that, it?s like we haven?t won anything. We don?t win anymore. The old expression, ?to the victor belong the spoils? -- you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn?t a fan of Iraq. I didn?t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I said it for economic reasons. But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil you probably wouldn?t have ISIS because that?s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil. But okay. (Laughter.) Maybe you?ll have another chance. But the fact is, should have kept the oil."

I won't even go into his ill-conceived threat to send in "the feds" to Chicago to fix the "carnage."

Can you please take over as head Red Hat troller.. I used to have patience to troll them with facts, but it long ago passed, now I can only belittle them.. :(

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Tell you what. I'll take this week's shift. I will probably be able to make it until next weekend before I start getting nasty with them. :1orglaugh

Aw, thank you!

On a side note, I had no idea Shutterstock was into fetish photography!

https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/disp...-116023357.jpg

Can you go into it? "send in the feds" is a bit vague, but clearly state and local authorities will never solve the problem, so what's wrong with someone else taking a serious look at it?

are you satisfied with the status quo in Chicago? or should something be done, if so, what solution do you propose that doesn't involve "the feds"? (keep in mind that Chicago has been and still is one of the most corrupt and violent cities in the US, and local authorities have been unable to put a dent in any of it)

Sounds like you advocate trashing the US Constitution - After 220 years of it working just fine and now we want to just shelve it?

I'm not advocating anything, I'm just asking what Elli thinks of the issue... and what she thinks should be done, if anything...

what do you think of it yourself?

I object to the manner with which Trump has handled the Chicago thing.

First, he was watching Fox News (feedback loop, anyone?)
Trump tweets response to another cable news segment - Business Insider
This is the clip he saw: https://twitter.com/Walldo/status/824082877503721472
Bill O'Reilly listed crime statistics in Chicago, then suggested "sending in the feds," and then a talking head discussed how this is possible. This is the graphic he saw.

A few hours later he tweeted this:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...arge-tease.jpg

Funnily enough, Feds are already there. The FBI has a permanent field office in Chicago and works closely with Police there. So, what did he mean by "the feds?" Does he mean Reserves? Army? Imposing Martial Law?

If he is considering sending in the army, then he is considering an impeachable offense and someone needs to tell him this. It's called the Posse Comitatus Act. Interestingly, he could Federalize the National Guard, which would make it somewhat exempt from this act, but Congress would have to allow that.

With such an attitude towards BIG gestures and BIG actions, this definitely sounds like something he would be considering.

Let's slide down the slippery slope a bit further: Chicago has nowhere near the country's highest murder rate. Also, the mayor, just a few hours before the Fox clip that Trump obviously watched, was told to "shut up" and resign by a Fox news anchor because he had suggested the President should stop worrying about his crowd sizes. Rahm has instead requested the federal aide to come in this form: "he pointed to federal help tracking illegal guns and prosecuting these cases, increased gun control measures and “help [paying for] additional police officers.”

In fact, Chicago had a higher murder rate in the 1990s.
https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wo...ll&w=575&ssl=1

Chicago isn't even the highest rate in the country:
https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/...-c-default.png

If Trump is truly concerned about murder rates, why is he making an example of Chicago instead of going after the more dangerous cities? The only answer is that the clip on Fox News caught his attention and he responded without critical thought.

This is a man who can be aimed in any direction and triggered by someone with an outrageous statistic and a TV show. This the MOST concerning aspect of all of this, aside from what his actual intentions in Chicago are.

Does that help?

per-capita is more important than total dead bodies? the size of the body pile is secondary to the population count in its location? oh god...just to hate trump.

you libs are sooo full retard hating trump.

:1orglaugh

If you want absolute counts of bodies, perhaps I can interest you in the popular vote results?

- you are speculating what he saw or what he was replying to, he was concerned with and simply commenting on current events, the FACT that murder rate rose dramatically in Chicago recently
- no one knows what he meant by "send in the feds", so you are speculating again, but the fact remains that local authorities are unable to solve the problem

what would you want the president to do? just ignore the issue? or stick to more important issues like commenting on an unfortunate death of a black guy during an arrest attempt by a white cop?

what would YOU do in a situation like this? you are the president of the United States, and you just learn that murder rate rose dramatically in Chicago... how would you react? What would you do?

I know you were talking to Elli...however being conservative I would pick up the phone and call the Governor and ask him what help he needed..if any...from the FBI, DEA etc...Legal avenues and then keep my mouth shut to the public so that people committing the acts don't realize they are being targeted
And most importantly - let the state handle it...important concept of the republic we live in - the states run themselves in these types of matters :thumbsup

and how will that conversation go? "mind your own business, but hey, send us a check for a few $Billion, that will help"

you guys make it sound like by "send in the feds" he means he will send in military choppers to carpet bomb high crime rate neighborhoods... when all he likely means is that perhaps a committee could be setup to investigate causes and solutions to the problem... or perhaps he means he wants to dedicate more FBI, DEA, etc personnel to specifically help clean up the mess... etc... which if implemented correctly doesn't sound unreasonable at all....

Libs triggered

Meltdowns happening
News at 11