HARRYM
NES Member
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
What's scary is if you look at the polls, the left will likely be going into the election thinking there is no way they can lose. I don't believe the polls. I would never respond to one and if I did I wouldn't admit voting for Trump. But, the polls will make things more volatile with a Trump win. Add to that the left fanning the flames of "racism" every where and it could be ugly.
First tranny?What happens when Michelle O enters the race next year?
It worked so well for Hillary.First tranny?
I just don't see it. At least, not to the degree that people keep talking about it. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Do I think more gun control will happen? Yes. But it's a pretty big leap to confiscation. Banning new sales of AR's is not nearly the same as going door to door demanding them.
I think the liberal media greatly overestimates how Dems view guns. They paint a picture where only Conservatives own guns and this is simply not true. People forget that even in areas that tend to vote Democrat, outside of the major cities, there are lots of gun owners. Even here in Mass, once you get outside of 128 there are a lot of gun owners. Outside 495, there are even more.
Gun control will not be acheived with one sweeping ban and confiscation. It will be a long process of death by a thousand cuts. First they will ban "assault weapons" sales, then standard magazines, likely followed by nation wide licensing and background checks, then impose restrictions and taxes on ammo purchases. This may not be the exact progression, but you get the point.
People say, "Look what happened in Australia or Great Britan". There really is no comparison. Just in numbers alone.
In 100 years there will still be gun owners in the US. You may not be able to buy AR's or carry in public legally, but there will be gun owners.
My advice is to uy plenty of the parts you will need to keep your AR's running, in case you can not get them in the future, mabe even a barrel or two, and stack ammo deep, with the hope you will never have to hand it over to the government... one round at a time
There are going to be a lot of gun purchases in the next year or so, same goes for mags and ammo, and you better believe the smart Dems are buying their share as well
One quibble I have, is that, despite the author's assertion, not all gun owners are single-issue voters.
Many who own guns, are not "gun owners," just as many who own golf clubs are not "golfers." They just play a game.
More accurately, Many if not most people who own guns are just not part of the "gun culture".
What's scary is if you look at the polls, the left will likely be going into the election thinking there is no way they can lose. I don't believe the polls. I would never respond to one and if I did I wouldn't admit voting for Trump. But, the polls will make things more volatile with a Trump win. Add to that the left fanning the flames of "racism" every where and it could be ugly.
You do not need a large sample set to get a reliable poll results IF the sample set is truly representative. There are statistical tests that can give you a pretty good idea how large this sample needs to be for a given size group to support a specified confidence level (95% is commonly used). Weeding out hidden sample bias is the tricky part.If I set a poll on NES that said "Have you ever been polled about which candidate you would
choose in an election?" I would be surprised if the "yes" result was higher than 10%, and that might even be stretching the truth like taffy.
To my brethren in Mass and the rest of occupied territories:
Remember when Jesus said to sell your cloak for a sword. The next year is a good time to revisit that. Ideally a sword that isn’t quite finished..... Also Pmag30’s are cheap, can be hidden easily and will be worth their weight in gold.
You do not need a large sample set to get a reliable poll results IF the sample set is truly representative.
There are statistical tests that can give you a pretty good idea how large this sample needs to be for a given size group to support a specified confidence level (95% is commonly used). Weeding out hidden sample bias is the tricky part.
Let's assume you give everyone in the country a coin to flip, and report the results. Common sense tells us the result would be very close 50% heads thanks to the binomial distribution.
Now, further assume you use 1000 random flippers as your polling sample, ask them to flip their coin and report the results. The result will be very close to 50% with a high (95%+) confidence level, even though you have polled only a miniscule percentage of the larger population. Even a mere 100 pollees in this case will get a high confidence level result. Doubt it? Take two rolls of pennies, dump them into a jar, shake, dump on the floor and start counting.
Better yet, trade your soon to be worthless Benjamins for Magpul D60s. Fight government dollar debasement now, and tyranny later.
I get what you're saying but we're not polling coin flippers here... and indeed, I don't think the sampling of most polls is even remotely representative, which is the core of the problem. Small sample sizes, IMHO, amplify the problem as well because it makes it less representative given bad conditions. Like some of these shitbirds are still doing phone polls. That's already contaminated the results of the poll alone. (who answers their phone anymore? Gladys Kravitz? that sits around all day and watches The View? yeah she's a real good source of data. As well as some democrat guy on disability sitting around doing nothing all day, etc. People who ActuallyWork(tm) are going to be harder to reach). The biasing most of these polls use is absurd. And I think honestly sometimes its intentional. Like take for example the polls about gun control... you would swear the pollsters are going into a nail salon on a weekday afternoon or something, given the garbage results of the polls that don't match reality.
Removing hidden bias/pollution from political polls IMHO is incredibly difficult, to the point the only polls that probably aren't complete garbage are exit polls, because you have people who just voted (and who didn't lie about going to vote, like some might on a phone etc) and so forth. You can also get a "truly representative" spectrum of highly likely voters, etc.
-Mike
If polling is that simple how come the polls were so wrong in 2016?You do not need a large sample set to get a reliable poll results IF the sample set is truly representative. There are statistical tests that can give you a pretty good idea how large this sample needs to be for a given size group to support a specified confidence level (95% is commonly used). Weeding out hidden sample bias is the tricky part.
Let's assume you give everyone in the country a coin to flip, and report the results. Common sense tells us the result would be very close 50% heads thanks to the binomial distribution.
Now, further assume you use 1000 random flippers as your polling sample, ask them to flip their coin and report the results. The result will be very close to 50% with a high (95%+) confidence level, even though you have polled only a miniscule percentage of the larger population. Even a mere 100 pollees in this case will get a high confidence level result. Doubt it? Take two rolls of pennies, dump them into a jar, shake, dump on the floor and start counting.
If polling is that simple how come the polls were so wrong in 2016?
Then if they do get results that don't fit their narrative, they either lie about it or simply make the results disappear.
If polling is that simple how come the polls were so wrong in 2016?