59% of Americans want Army out of Iraq completely by August 2008

[JollyRoger]

Actualy the exit polling showed that Bush lost in a land slide. That why the big 3 news media outlets called the election for Kerry only to prove latter that they were stupid for relying on polls instead of hard numbers.

I was not talking about exit polling.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

My conclusion is that polls have very little to do with reality. Example: If Bush's numbers are up, one side says the polls are wrong...if Bush's numbers are down, one side says the polls are wrong. Etc. etc. etc.

One of these days I would like the data on the people polled. Where they live, what they do, etc. Just to see exactly how 'balanced' such polls are.

MobBoss, this is striking me as disingenuous of you.

I'm distinctly remembering a gay marriage thread where you used the fact that a poll said the majority of Americans were against gay marriage as part of your argument for why we should not allow it.

If you don't think polls reflect reality, why did you use such data in your argument?

 

[CartesianFart]

You are making an ignorant fool of yourself, or else being deliberately obfuscatory; possibly both.

I beg to differ.

Please explain to us why a sample size of 1500 can or can not be representative of 300 million people; use mathematics, not handwaving.

Simple arithmetic can do.Of all the people who have been polled(1500) out of a possible 300,000,000 that is left out is poorly representational since it leaves out 299,998,500.Unless you think that this is what you mean as being true representation.

What the [REDACTED] does the difference between inductive and deductive logic have to do with this?

What i am saying is that,if you take the data of all the people who have been questioned (1500)and inductively concur that it is probable by the questions that was given that all answers of a probable number of people(300,000,000) as being a percentage of answers can be misleading not only the polsters but the public as being a general one based on percentage of possiblity of the rest being the same as the ones that was polled.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Today's Senate vote was huge. The GOP did not have enough to fillibuster. They did not even try to delay passage by a few days, to try to build up some political cover for Bush. They passed the supplemental bill on to the President and now he will have to sign it or veto it. His party just told him, "you're on your own pal".

This is big because the big Republican monolith prides itself on showing solidarity. That is ending. The cracks are showing. They're simply sick and tired of putting their necks on the line to protect the incredible incompetents sitting in the White House. They declined today to rally to the President's defense. Going forth from here, they will choose likewise with increasing frequency.

Now will President Bush sign this bill and "Support the troops?" Or will he veto the bill, and risk Congress sending a tougher measure up next time? A bill drafted after Gonzalaez is forced to resign in disgrace.

I think he signs. He's weak. He grows weaker every day.

Our tropps are coming home.

 

[odintheking]

I voted NOW.

 

[Xanikk999]

Today's Senate vote was huge. The GOP did not have enough to fillibuster. They did not even try to delay passage by a few days, to try to build up some political cover for Bush. They passed the supplemental bill on to the President and now he will have to sign it or veto it. His party just told him, "you're on your own pal".

This is big because the big Republican monolith prides itself on showing solidarity. That is ending. The cracks are showing. They're simply sick and tired of putting their necks on the line to protect the incredible incompetents sitting in the White House. They declined today to rally to the President's defense. Going forth from here, they will choose likewise with increasing frequency.

Now will President Bush sign this bill and "Support the troops?" Or will he veto the bill, and risk Congress sending a tougher measure up next time? A bill drafted after Gonzalaez is forced to resign in disgrace.

I think he signs. He's weak. He grows weaker every day.

Our tropps are coming home.

I hope so.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

As a radical, left-wing American, one who thinks Bush majorly fuc... messed up, I say troops need to stay in Iraq until the country is stable or until the Iraqi government asks them to leave.

I understand where you are coming from. As bad as things are, they can get worse. As our troops crossed the border in 2003, I wondered if we were seeing the start of WW3. I still don't know the answer to that. To those that scoff, I merely point out a long time passed between the time Japanese troops rolled into Manchuria, and Pearl Harbor.

I am dissapointed in the school-age quality of the American debate on this issue. "Support the troops!" versus "Bring them home!". Both slogans ignore the ugly realities.

But unfortunaely, that's the way things work. "Bring most of the troops home but be sure to negotiate rights for a regional force on standby to contain the violence from sprading regionally!" makes for a poor slogan to chant while marching on the Mall.

So if we are lucky, public opinion through Congress with force an end to the ongoing occupation. Then after the general public heaves a sigh of relief and gets on to the dancing in the streets part, the professionals will negotiate some way from keeping that region to explode further.

 

[Quintillus]

I voted NOW and August 2008. Based on what the U.S. government has been doing, I would prefer the sooner. I don't believe the war is lost. To win the war, however, I believe a much larger commitment of resources is necessary than the United States is willing to commit. Unless the Iraqi people have faith in the new democratic government, stability is not going to occur. And to achieve that faith, the Iraqi people have to see life as being better than it was before. With all the infrastructure problems, not to mention crime problems, I don't believe this is the case. Could this be changed? Yes. But is the U.S. conducting the war any differently to achieve this change? No. Therefore, as the U.S. is continuing down the path that hasn't worked for five years, the best alternate would be to withdraw and cut the losses.

Would this create other problems? Yes. Civil war would almost surely ensue, and Iraq would, at least for a time, be a safe place for terrorists. Can it be avoided? Not with the current method of operations. It can only be delayed. Is it too dangerous to allow Iraq to slip into civil war? I do not believe so. If we stay indefinetely it, lives will continually be lost and finances will be continually drained, and it's not like we actually have control of the situation anyways. The time has come to let things sort themselves out, and save ourselves the agony of another five years of ineffectiveness.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

This thread makes my head hurt.

More people need to take statistics courses. All the "polls aren't for reals HURRRRRR" people are seriously embarrassing themselves.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Of course a sample size of 1500 is good enough to model the views of 300 million. After all, ~600 congressmen satisfactorily represent 300 million people.

 

[JollyRoger]

Of course a sample size of 1500 is good enough to model the views of 300 million. After all, ~600 congressmen satisfactorily represent 300 million people.

If Bush finds his veto pen, then an army of one man representing 300 million. He should have to demonstrate some success on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader" before getting access to the veto pen though.

 

[Bluemofia]

Personally, I believe we should leave, but not immediately. Too sudden. We need to gradually withdraw, not some sudden massive exodus of American troops.

So the best option for me is leave, but after 2008.

 

[MjM]

I vote for all of the above lol

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Simple arithmetic can do.Of all the people who have been polled(1500) out of a possible 300,000,000 that is left out is poorly representational since it leaves out 299,998,500.Unless you think that this is what you mean as being true representation.

I said: Mathematics, not handwaving. It appears that you didn't read the links I posted.

The way you're posting is like bluffing when your opponent holds a royal flush. You can say "inductive" and "arithmetic" all you like, but my saying "inductive logic shows you to be poorly educated because you do not grasp basic arithmetic" proves very little. Put up or shut up. Explain to what degree a sample size of 1500 people is representative. Show your work. Give references. Put some substance in your posts.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, this is striking me as disingenuous of you.

I'm distinctly remembering a gay marriage thread where you used the fact that a poll said the majority of Americans were against gay marriage as part of your argument for why we should not allow it.

If you don't think polls reflect reality, why did you use such data in your argument?

Actually, you are incorrect. I much prefer to point to actual election results.......not polling data to make my case in regards to gay marriage.

Also, my feeling in regards to polls does not mean others I debate against feel the same. If I have a debate opponent who wants to claim victory based upon polling data, is it not fair for me to offer differing poll data in a debate - regardless of how I feel about polls in general? Of course it is.

I think he signs. He's weak. He grows weaker every day.

If the man said he will veto it....he will veto it. You are dreaming if you think he is that weak.

 

[nonconformist]

Actually, you are incorrect. I much prefer to point to actual election results.......not polling data to make my case in regards to gay marriage.

Because elections come down to the single issue of gay marriage

 

[MobBoss]

Because elections come down to the single issue of gay marriage

Sigh. No, actually, about 2/3rds of the states have passed law or constitutional amendments in regards to the issue prohibiting gay marriage.

Even states considered fairly liberal.

To me, that speaks louder than any poll.

But you are free to all you want.

 

[Masquerouge]

I beg to differ.

Simple arithmetic can do.Of all the people who have been polled(1500) out of a possible 300,000,000 that is left out is poorly representational since it leaves out 299,998,500.Unless you think that this is what you mean as being true representation.

I know for sure we've already had that discussion. Guess what? Polling arithmetic is NOT SIMPLE, and is CONTER-INTUITIVE. But the end result is that the only thing that matters when you want results withing a certain interval of confidence (sayyou want the results to be correct up to two points, 95% of the time) is the size of your sample. The total size of the population is IRRELEVANT.

But yeah, I suppose I should trust you over my statistic teachers.

What i am saying is that,if you take the data of all the people who have been questioned (1500)and inductively concur that it is probable by the questions that was given that all answers of a probable number of people(300,000,000) as being a percentage of answers can be misleading not only the polsters but the public as being a general one based on percentage of possiblity of the rest being the same as the ones that was polled.

This hardly makes sense.

 

[CartesianFart]

I know for sure we've already had that discussion. Guess what? Polling arithmetic is NOT SIMPLE, and is CONTER-INTUITIVE. But the end result is that the only thing that matters when you want results withing a certain interval of confidence (sayyou want the results to be correct up to two points, 95% of the time) is the size of your sample. The total size of the population is IRRELEVANT.

But yeah, I suppose I should trust you over my statistic teachers.

That have nothing to do with statistics,i was arguing on the point that whenever a number of people that was polled that it only represent that number of people that was polled.

This hardly makes sense.

What does not make sense?Ask me what is that need to be clarified so i can deaden the language suitable for your taste.

 

[Masquerouge]

What does not make sense?Ask me what is that need to be clarified so i can deaden the language suitable for your taste.

This is what you posted:

What i am saying is that,if you take the data of all the people who have been questioned (1500)and inductively concur that it is probable by the questions that was given that all answers of a probable number of people(300,000,000) as being a percentage of answers can be misleading not only the polsters but the public as being a general one based on percentage of possiblity of the rest being the same as the ones that was polled.

I don't understand the use of the highlighted "as".
I don't understand what the highlighted "general one" refers to.
I think this sentence lacks a point in the middle, or at least commas.
I'm under the impression that a lot of verbs are not in the proper form (like singular when the subject is plural, and vice-versa) and it doesn't help comprehension.
I do not understand the expression "Percentage of possibility".
And generally the logic seems hazy. It looks like you're saying that we should not assume answers given in a poll are representative of answers of the general population?