MOST Americans approve of Obama!!!!!

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#21
I dont get how it works, i read it, but i dont get it :(


It means that if you take a random sampling of 1000 adults there is a 95% chance that their responses will be within +-3% of what you would get if you asked everyone in America.


So because this poll on Obama sampled about 1000 people, there is 95% certainty that the real public opinion on Obama (meaning if you actually asked all 300,000,000 people about his approval) would be between a 65-71% approval rating.

Most national polls use a 1000 person sample size because as you increase the sample size passed 1000, the cost of the poll increases but the accuracy only increases slightly, so most people use 1000 as the sample size.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#23
One key question faced by Gallup statisticians: how many interviews does it take to provide an adequate cross-section of Americans? The answer is, not many -- that is, if the respondents to be interviewed are selected entirely at random, giving every adult American an equal probability of falling into the sample. The current US adult population in the continental United States is 187 million. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll which is designed to represent this general population is 1,000 national adults.

The actual number of people which need to be interviewed for a given sample is to some degree less important than the soundness of the fundamental equal probability of selection principle. In other words - although this is something many people find hard to believe - if respondents are not selected randomly, we could have a poll with a million people and still be significantly less likely to represent the views of all Americans than a much smaller sample of just 1,000 people - if that sample is selected randomly.

To be sure, there is some gain in sampling accuracy which comes from increasing sample sizes. Common sense - and sampling theory - tell us that a sample of 1,000 people probably is going to be more accurate than a sample of 20. Surprisingly, however, once the survey sample gets to a size of 500, 600, 700 or more, there are fewer and fewer accuracy gains which come from increasing the sample size. Gallup and other major organizations use sample sizes of between 1,000 and 1,500 because they provide a solid balance of accuracy against the increased economic cost of larger and larger samples. If Gallup were to - quite expensively - use a sample of 4,000 randomly selected adults each time it did its poll, the increase in accuracy over and beyond a well-done sample of 1,000 would be minimal, and generally speaking, would not justify the increase in cost.

Statisticians over the years have developed quite specific ways of measuring the accuracy of samples - so long as the fundamental principle of equal probability of selection is adhered to when the sample is drawn.

For example, with a sample size of 1,000 national adults, (derived using careful random selection procedures), the results are highly likely to be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Thus, if we find in a given poll that President Clinton's approval rating is 50%, the margin of error indicates that the true rating is very likely to be between 53% and 47%. It is very unlikely to be higher or lower than that.

To be more specific, the laws of probability say that if we were to conduct the same survey 100 times, asking people in each survey to rate the job Bill Clinton is doing as president, in 95 out of those 100 polls, we would find his rating to be between 47% and 53%. In only five of those surveys would we expect his rating to be higher or lower than that due to chance error.

As discussed above, if we increase the sample size to 2,000 rather than 1,000 for a Gallup poll, we would find that the results would be accurate within plus or minus 2% of the underlying population value, a gain of 1% in terms of accuracy, but with a 100% increase in the cost of conducting the survey. These are the cost value decisions which Gallup and other survey organizations make when they decide on sample sizes for their surveys.

http://janda.org/c10/Lectures/topic05/GallupFAQ.htm#size
 
Feb 15, 2006
418
9
18
45
#24
So 65% of American people are behinde this clown so that means 65% Americans realy need check up on what they are suporting.last time i checked things like imperialism and neocoloialism a wasn't doing this planet any good
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#25
So 65% of American people are behinde this clown so that means 65% Americans realy need check up on what they are suporting.last time i checked things like imperialism and neocoloialism a wasn't doing this planet any good
reread page 1 of this thread
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
44
www.myspace.com
#26
100 days into his Presidency and Barry H. has a 68% approval rating in his job performance...... applause, applause, applause..... Only JFK and D. Eisenhower had higher approval ratings than BH....... Give credit where its due, MOST people like him and the direction he is taking America...........

In contrast the last Dem Pres., Bill Clinton, had a 49% approval rating after 100 days.
Depending on what poll you use...

Have you ever heard of a citation?

Also knowing how to read a poll would come in handy.
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
44
www.myspace.com
#27
It means that if you take a random sampling of 1000 adults there is a 95% chance that their responses will be within +-3% of what you would get if you asked everyone in America.


So because this poll on Obama sampled about 1000 people, there is 95% certainty that the real public opinion on Obama (meaning if you actually asked all 300,000,000 people about his approval) would be between a 65-71% approval rating.

Most national polls use a 1000 person sample size because as you increase the sample size passed 1000, the cost of the poll increases but the accuracy only increases slightly, so most people use 1000 as the sample size.
It also depends on where you sample.

I think polls are absolutely useless.
 
Jul 3, 2008
4,122
194
0
36
#30
I hated my statistics class...that shit was much harder than just finding batting averages.
im taken psychological statistics rite now...im PRAYEN i scrape by wit that C-....shit is NOT the bizniz

obamas approval rating is only 62% rite now...

pretty bad consdering the high hopes every1 had for him
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
44
www.myspace.com
#31
im taken psychological statistics rite now...im PRAYEN i scrape by wit that C-....shit is NOT the bizniz

obamas approval rating is only 62% rite now...

pretty bad consdering the high hopes every1 had for him
What the fuck are you talking about?

"psychological statistics" - Is that liberal for 'I work for ACORN'

How does one take psychological statistics?
 
Dec 2, 2006
6,161
44
0
#32
hmmmmm. statistics.

this brings back memories. lol. i remember being intimidated by the symbols and all the jibberish in the statistical language when i first browsed through the textbook. It actually ended up being alot easier than i was told and anticipated. Understanding where to plug in the numbers and what formulas to use was the difficult part. the math was basic. i never realized the concepts of calculating data were so complex in nature. definately more than batting averages and probabilities. lol

but back to the thread.

obama cant be judged over the course of a 100 days no matter what the numbers say. in another 2 years lets see where we are at.
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
44
www.myspace.com
#33
this brings back memories. lol. i remember being intimidated by the symbols and all the jibberish in the statistical language when i first browsed through the textbook. It actually ended up being alot easier than i was told and anticipated. Understanding where to plug in the numbers and what formulas to use was the difficult part. the math was basic. i never realized the concepts of calculating data were so complex in nature. definately more than batting averages and probabilities. lol

but back to the thread.

obama cant be judged over the course of a 100 days no matter what the numbers say. in another 2 years lets see where we are at.

And I wonder why my country is so fucked up?
 
Dec 2, 2006
6,161
44
0
#38
wow!

I tried to explane how blunt I was in a previous thread.

It means I think our nations is full of half-witted retarded jerkoffs.

It means whatever you want it to.
please EXPLANE to me what you consider yourself? 1/8-1/4 witted retarded jerk-off? i agree that our nation has its flaws but being mad and making statements that only contribute to the problem isnt the answer.

answer my question though. i'm curious.
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
44
www.myspace.com
#39
please EXPLANE to me what you consider yourself? 1/8-1/4 witted retarded jerk-off? i agree that our nation has its flaws but being mad and making statements that only contribute to the problem isnt the answer.

answer my question though. i'm curious.
WTF, I could write you a book.

"being mad and making statements that only contribute to the problem isnt the answer"

Then whats the answer?

Dont piss of liberals or they will ask fucking weird questions that have weird answers?

How about this Obama worshiping is a little freaky?

I dont even know where to begin with one.
 
Dec 2, 2006
6,161
44
0
#40
WTF, I could write you a book.
about what?

"being mad and making statements that only contribute to the problem isnt the answer"

Then whats the answer?
i dont have them for you. i have some for myself. education is key.

Dont piss of liberals or they will ask fucking weird questions that have obvious answers?
why do you use a question mark at the end of a statement? you should have pressed !!!! if you wanted to emphasize your statement.


you know swoop187 i dont know you. i've come in this forum in the beginning making unsupported statements that were eaten up by the intelligent minds in this forum. i actually appreciated the eye openers more than i displayed because of the valuable lesson they represented in reality. interacting within the other forums didnt prepare me for the few people here that actually have some real life knowledge that i thought i had. are you capable of the same?