Jim Comey is a convenient boogieman, and maybe he did swing Florida and North Carolina to Trump, but there is no chance he alone is responsible for the discrepancies we saw in MI, Wi and PA.
The passionate Nate Silver defenses are never not weird, and this exchange has been no exception.
Yeah? Tell that to all the people who decided to vote for Trump in the last week of the election 59% in WI 54% in PA 50% in MI I'll toss in 59% in FL for good measure.
As for late deciders, sure. They almost all broke from Clinton and Comey was certainly a big reason why. That there were so many late deciders is an indictment of Clinton and her campaign, but I personally don't believe everyone who claims to have only decided to vote for Trump in the last week. Trump is scum and was then, and most of America knew that. I personally think many of the 63 million who pulled the lever for him decided they were going to long before they admitted it to themselves or anyone else. And long before Comey's letter. No way to prove that, but I'm not willing to blindly accept as fact something a Trump voter tells me about their reasons for casting that vote. "Comey" is a lot easier to sell to your friends and family, to your kids, than racism and misogyny.
Sounds like your issue is not with the polling or the forecasts, you just seem to disbelieve what people are saying to the exit polling people as they left their polling places. I don't know why they would lie in that instance.
Clinton was a horrible candidate who didn't go to Wisconsin once. Of course it's an indictment on her campaign. But the bottom line is the vast majority of people who decided in the last week went to Trump and polling could not take that into account. And there was only one insanely huge political bombshell that dropped around that time that benefited Trump. So it's not hard to put two and two together here...
You don't know why someone would lie to a pollster about their reasons for voting for a candidate that was endorsed by David Duke and Breitbart? I can think of a few reasons.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
Jim Comey is a convenient boogieman, and maybe he did swing Florida and North Carolina to Trump, but there is no chance he alone is responsible for the discrepancies we saw in MI, Wi and PA.
The passionate Nate Silver defenses are never not weird, and this exchange has been no exception.
Yeah? Tell that to all the people who decided to vote for Trump in the last week of the election 59% in WI 54% in PA 50% in MI I'll toss in 59% in FL for good measure.
As for late deciders, sure. They almost all broke from Clinton and Comey was certainly a big reason why. That there were so many late deciders is an indictment of Clinton and her campaign, but I personally don't believe everyone who claims to have only decided to vote for Trump in the last week. Trump is scum and was then, and most of America knew that. I personally think many of the 63 million who pulled the lever for him decided they were going to long before they admitted it to themselves or anyone else. And long before Comey's letter. No way to prove that, but I'm not willing to blindly accept as fact something a Trump voter tells me about their reasons for casting that vote. "Comey" is a lot easier to sell to your friends and family, to your kids, than racism and misogyny.
Sounds like your issue is not with the polling or the forecasts, you just seem to disbelieve what people are saying to the exit polling people as they left their polling places. I don't know why they would lie in that instance.
Clinton was a horrible candidate who didn't go to Wisconsin once. Of course it's an indictment on her campaign. But the bottom line is the vast majority of people who decided in the last week went to Trump and polling could not take that into account. And there was only one insanely huge political bombshell that dropped around that time that benefited Trump. So it's not hard to put two and two together here...
You don't know why someone would lie to a pollster about their reasons for voting for a candidate that was endorsed by David Duke and Breitbart? I can think of a few reasons.
So you're issue is with those liars and not with polling and forecast models then.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.
But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.
Jim Comey is a convenient boogieman, and maybe he did swing Florida and North Carolina to Trump, but there is no chance he alone is responsible for the discrepancies we saw in MI, Wi and PA.
The passionate Nate Silver defenses are never not weird, and this exchange has been no exception.
Yeah? Tell that to all the people who decided to vote for Trump in the last week of the election 59% in WI 54% in PA 50% in MI I'll toss in 59% in FL for good measure.
As for late deciders, sure. They almost all broke from Clinton and Comey was certainly a big reason why. That there were so many late deciders is an indictment of Clinton and her campaign, but I personally don't believe everyone who claims to have only decided to vote for Trump in the last week. Trump is scum and was then, and most of America knew that. I personally think many of the 63 million who pulled the lever for him decided they were going to long before they admitted it to themselves or anyone else. And long before Comey's letter. No way to prove that, but I'm not willing to blindly accept as fact something a Trump voter tells me about their reasons for casting that vote. "Comey" is a lot easier to sell to your friends and family, to your kids, than racism and misogyny.
Sounds like your issue is not with the polling or the forecasts, you just seem to disbelieve what people are saying to the exit polling people as they left their polling places. I don't know why they would lie in that instance.
Clinton was a horrible candidate who didn't go to Wisconsin once. Of course it's an indictment on her campaign. But the bottom line is the vast majority of people who decided in the last week went to Trump and polling could not take that into account. And there was only one insanely huge political bombshell that dropped around that time that benefited Trump. So it's not hard to put two and two together here...
You don't know why someone would lie to a pollster about their reasons for voting for a candidate that was endorsed by David Duke and Breitbart? I can think of a few reasons.
So you're issue is with those liars and not with polling and forecast models then.
Two different issues. I don't believe everyone who tells us they were swung to Trump in that last week, nor do I believe Comey alone gets Silver off the hook for his misfire in 2016. If you want to come up with a scenario that gets Trump to 28.6 based on the numbers Silver predicted in the states, have at it.
how many times in modern history has one party held the WH for 3 consecutive terms?
Reagan - Reagan - Bush is the only time in my lifetime. Before that you have to go back to FDR and Truman before, during and after WWII.
had a brain fart and forgot about those years. my point, which is now moot, it just seems to me that in these highly polarized times, the pendulum is going to swing, and it's going to swing harder than ever before.
but that's just me.
when i thought hillary had it in the bag, i had thoughts that the republican party would be dead in the water after that.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
Jim Comey is a convenient boogieman, and maybe he did swing Florida and North Carolina to Trump, but there is no chance he alone is responsible for the discrepancies we saw in MI, Wi and PA.
The passionate Nate Silver defenses are never not weird, and this exchange has been no exception.
Yeah? Tell that to all the people who decided to vote for Trump in the last week of the election 59% in WI 54% in PA 50% in MI I'll toss in 59% in FL for good measure.
As for late deciders, sure. They almost all broke from Clinton and Comey was certainly a big reason why. That there were so many late deciders is an indictment of Clinton and her campaign, but I personally don't believe everyone who claims to have only decided to vote for Trump in the last week. Trump is scum and was then, and most of America knew that. I personally think many of the 63 million who pulled the lever for him decided they were going to long before they admitted it to themselves or anyone else. And long before Comey's letter. No way to prove that, but I'm not willing to blindly accept as fact something a Trump voter tells me about their reasons for casting that vote. "Comey" is a lot easier to sell to your friends and family, to your kids, than racism and misogyny.
Sounds like your issue is not with the polling or the forecasts, you just seem to disbelieve what people are saying to the exit polling people as they left their polling places. I don't know why they would lie in that instance.
Clinton was a horrible candidate who didn't go to Wisconsin once. Of course it's an indictment on her campaign. But the bottom line is the vast majority of people who decided in the last week went to Trump and polling could not take that into account. And there was only one insanely huge political bombshell that dropped around that time that benefited Trump. So it's not hard to put two and two together here...
You don't know why someone would lie to a pollster about their reasons for voting for a candidate that was endorsed by David Duke and Breitbart? I can think of a few reasons.
So you're issue is with those liars and not with polling and forecast models then.
Two different issues. I don't believe everyone who tells us they were swung to Trump in that last week, nor do I believe Comey alone gets Silver off the hook for his misfire in 2016. If you want to come up with a scenario that gets Trump to 28.6 based on the numbers Silver predicted in the states, have at it.
Your issue is seems to be that you just think people are being dishonest in anonymous polling. That's something you can't blame people like Nate Silver for....
Jim Comey is a convenient boogieman, and maybe he did swing Florida and North Carolina to Trump, but there is no chance he alone is responsible for the discrepancies we saw in MI, Wi and PA.
The passionate Nate Silver defenses are never not weird, and this exchange has been no exception.
Yeah? Tell that to all the people who decided to vote for Trump in the last week of the election 59% in WI 54% in PA 50% in MI I'll toss in 59% in FL for good measure.
As for late deciders, sure. They almost all broke from Clinton and Comey was certainly a big reason why. That there were so many late deciders is an indictment of Clinton and her campaign, but I personally don't believe everyone who claims to have only decided to vote for Trump in the last week. Trump is scum and was then, and most of America knew that. I personally think many of the 63 million who pulled the lever for him decided they were going to long before they admitted it to themselves or anyone else. And long before Comey's letter. No way to prove that, but I'm not willing to blindly accept as fact something a Trump voter tells me about their reasons for casting that vote. "Comey" is a lot easier to sell to your friends and family, to your kids, than racism and misogyny.
Sounds like your issue is not with the polling or the forecasts, you just seem to disbelieve what people are saying to the exit polling people as they left their polling places. I don't know why they would lie in that instance.
Clinton was a horrible candidate who didn't go to Wisconsin once. Of course it's an indictment on her campaign. But the bottom line is the vast majority of people who decided in the last week went to Trump and polling could not take that into account. And there was only one insanely huge political bombshell that dropped around that time that benefited Trump. So it's not hard to put two and two together here...
You don't know why someone would lie to a pollster about their reasons for voting for a candidate that was endorsed by David Duke and Breitbart? I can think of a few reasons.
So you're issue is with those liars and not with polling and forecast models then.
Two different issues. I don't believe everyone who tells us they were swung to Trump in that last week, nor do I believe Comey alone gets Silver off the hook for his misfire in 2016. If you want to come up with a scenario that gets Trump to 28.6 based on the numbers Silver predicted in the states, have at it.
Your issue is seems to be that you just think people are being dishonest in anonymous polling. That's something you can't blame people like Nate Silver for....
Again, I don't think the 28.6% Silver had on his front page can be backed up by the data from the individual states, and I don't give him as much credit as his defenders want me to for his being less wrong than someone else.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
Jim Comey is a convenient boogieman, and maybe he did swing Florida and North Carolina to Trump, but there is no chance he alone is responsible for the discrepancies we saw in MI, Wi and PA.
The passionate Nate Silver defenses are never not weird, and this exchange has been no exception.
Yeah? Tell that to all the people who decided to vote for Trump in the last week of the election 59% in WI 54% in PA 50% in MI I'll toss in 59% in FL for good measure.
As for late deciders, sure. They almost all broke from Clinton and Comey was certainly a big reason why. That there were so many late deciders is an indictment of Clinton and her campaign, but I personally don't believe everyone who claims to have only decided to vote for Trump in the last week. Trump is scum and was then, and most of America knew that. I personally think many of the 63 million who pulled the lever for him decided they were going to long before they admitted it to themselves or anyone else. And long before Comey's letter. No way to prove that, but I'm not willing to blindly accept as fact something a Trump voter tells me about their reasons for casting that vote. "Comey" is a lot easier to sell to your friends and family, to your kids, than racism and misogyny.
Sounds like your issue is not with the polling or the forecasts, you just seem to disbelieve what people are saying to the exit polling people as they left their polling places. I don't know why they would lie in that instance.
Clinton was a horrible candidate who didn't go to Wisconsin once. Of course it's an indictment on her campaign. But the bottom line is the vast majority of people who decided in the last week went to Trump and polling could not take that into account. And there was only one insanely huge political bombshell that dropped around that time that benefited Trump. So it's not hard to put two and two together here...
You don't know why someone would lie to a pollster about their reasons for voting for a candidate that was endorsed by David Duke and Breitbart? I can think of a few reasons.
So you're issue is with those liars and not with polling and forecast models then.
Two different issues. I don't believe everyone who tells us they were swung to Trump in that last week, nor do I believe Comey alone gets Silver off the hook for his misfire in 2016. If you want to come up with a scenario that gets Trump to 28.6 based on the numbers Silver predicted in the states, have at it.
Your issue is seems to be that you just think people are being dishonest in anonymous polling. That's something you can't blame people like Nate Silver for....
Again, I don't think the 28.6% Silver had on his front page can be backed up by the data from the individual states, and I don't give him as much credit as his defenders want me to for his being less wrong than someone else.
Well he addressed how data from individual states and late breaking voters affected it. I pointed you to the article. Whether you choose to read it or not is out of my control.
70% is not 100%. It's kinda like how the Patriots were about a 6 point favorite in SB52, facing a backup quarterback. You remember that one, don't ya? Most people did not give the Eagles much of a chance and they had a good reason not to do so. The odds were stacked against them due to Wentz being out along with a bunch of other injuries. But they won anyway.
The favorite does not always win. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been odds on favorites going into the game/election.
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that.
30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance.
Post edited by The Juggler on
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
Biden
Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that.
I’m in the same boat as you Hugh. I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance up until at least a year after the election. I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough. I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.
Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.
Do you really want to hear the word Benghazi ever again? I’m sure she is fine and fully capable, but that would really give fuel to the “lock her up crowd”. Not to mention that many otherwise sane Americans still play the what about Benghazi game.
Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.
Agreed!
jesus greets me looks just like me ....
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.
Do you really want to hear the word Benghazi ever again? I’m sure she is fine and fully capable, but that would really give fuel to the “lock her up crowd”. Not to mention that many otherwise sane Americans still play the what about Benghazi game.
That's...what I meant by "baggage."
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that.
I’m in the same boat as you Hugh. I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance up until at least a year after the election. I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough. I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.
30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance.
PAY. ATTENTION. For the love of god, people. I don't know how many times I have to explain this stuff. Over and over again for almost four years now. Unreal.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,798
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.
Do you really want to hear the word Benghazi ever again? I’m sure she is fine and fully capable, but that would really give fuel to the “lock her up crowd”. Not to mention that many otherwise sane Americans still play the what about Benghazi game.
That's...what I meant by "baggage."
Yeah I got that. I think Benghazi is an unbridgeable gap no matter how capable the candidate, or how much of a mountain that whole mole hill was made to be.
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,291
Do you guys think Susan Rice is a good choice? I think she would make an excellent VP, but I also think she has a lot of baggage from her time as Nat Security Advisor and stuff. I'm not sure.
Do you really want to hear the word Benghazi ever again? I’m sure she is fine and fully capable, but that would really give fuel to the “lock her up crowd”. Not to mention that many otherwise sane Americans still play the what about Benghazi game.
That's...what I meant by "baggage."
Yeah I got that. I think Benghazi is an unbridgeable gap no matter how capable the candidate, or how much of a mountain that whole mole hill was made to be.
I wouldn't go that far. I actually think the spy gate nonsense Trump whines about would be a bigger deal with her.
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that.
30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance.
yeah, i'm aware of what you posted. that's not what i was referring to, obviously.
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that.
I’m in the same boat as you Hugh. I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance up until at least a year after the election. I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough. I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.
30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance.
PAY. ATTENTION. For the love of god, people. I don't know how many times I have to explain this stuff. Over and over again for almost four years now. Unreal.
i really don't know what your problem is. we all get it. the polling was mostly correct. WE FUCKING KNOW THAT. what you aren't .listening to is the SOURCES I WAS LISTENING TO GAVE TRUMP LITERALLY ABOUT 5% CHANCE. i was obviously listening to the wrong sources, you were listening to the right ones. my polling sources game was pretty shitty in 2016. GET IT?
not sure why you keep beating this dead fucking horse.
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that.
I’m in the same boat as you Hugh. I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance up until at least a year after the election. I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough. I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.
I think it has to do with modern society's need to distill everything down to a soundbite.
An analytics news site like 538 will explain the 'how' of a prediction. Namely, the margin of error of state-level polls is aggregated to convey a national statistic, based on the number of EC seats allocated to each state. When they do this aggregation, the data + error potential will come out with a range from worst-case to best-case. Where those summed up numbers sit relative to the 'win/loss' line, establishes the probability of victory, but it's absolutely a product of how the individual states perform, and whether the error margin tips the scale in favour or away. From what I recall, all state-level predictions were quite accurate (i.e. outcomes within the data + error potential range in most cases).
This paints a very different picture of the reality than the way the media portrayed this - with one data value (i.e. the probability of a national victory) to convey all of this detail. Like most soundbites, it does a piss-poor job of that. That's no fault of a news consumer - it's more a byproduct of the media's pivoted primary purpose of entertainment (where it used to be information).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.
But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.
I've never seen anything convincing about voting irregularities in WI/PA/MI in 2016. My first thought was that the fucking Russians hacked voting machines or something. All they needed to do was move about 38K Clinton votes to tRump and the election ended up like it did.
The Comey effect made sense...and that is what Nate Silver hung his hat on. The polls just didn't have time to react to that bullshit.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
either those numbers weren't widely published, or i just wasn't in the right place to see them. i don't recall seeing anywhere prior to the election that trump had a lick of a chance to win.
Oh man. That's it. I'm done. I can't do this anymore.
i'm not saying it wasn't there. i'm saying all the news sources i went to back then basically gave trump zero chance. i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying the interpretations of the polling numbers I SAW said that.
I’m in the same boat as you Hugh. I don’t think I heard anything about any polls giving Trump a fighting chance up until at least a year after the election. I recall the general sentiment that was widely published at the time being that the polls said Hillary has got this, which led to her not campaigning vigorously enough. I’ve been wrong before, but that was the 2016 messaging I saw everywhere.
30% seems a helluva lot higher than 0% to me. Go back and read what I posted in here earlier. Or do a search under my name for "polling" and "2016" or something. HRC was rightly a big favorite, but that did not mean Trump had 0% chance.
PAY. ATTENTION. For the love of god, people. I don't know how many times I have to explain this stuff. Over and over again for almost four years now. Unreal.
i really don't know what your problem is. we all get it. the polling was mostly correct. WE FUCKING KNOW THAT. what you aren't .listening to is the SOURCES I WAS LISTENING TO GAVE TRUMP LITERALLY ABOUT 5% CHANCE. i was obviously listening to the wrong sources, you were listening to the right ones. my polling sources game was pretty shitty in 2016. GET IT?
not sure why you keep beating this dead fucking horse.
I remember periods of time where tRump had a very low chance of being elected according to the 538 forecast. Those were usually after fucked up things he did or said (the "grab them by the pussy" tape, a new lawsuit for sexual assault, etc.) but he always bounced back.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
but that's just me.
when i thought hillary had it in the bag, i had thoughts that the republican party would be dead in the water after that.
www.headstonesband.com
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-yes-donald-trump-has-a-path-to-victory/
Your issue is seems to be that you just think people are being dishonest in anonymous polling. That's something you can't blame people like Nate Silver for....
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
70% is not 100%. It's kinda like how the Patriots were about a 6 point favorite in SB52, facing a backup quarterback. You remember that one, don't ya? Most people did not give the Eagles much of a chance and they had a good reason not to do so. The odds were stacked against them due to Wentz being out along with a bunch of other injuries. But they won anyway.
The favorite does not always win. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been odds on favorites going into the game/election.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It's just a frustrating conversation I've had with countless people who are still under the assumption that the polls were wildly inaccurate when they actually were not.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
PAY. ATTENTION. For the love of god, people. I don't know how many times I have to explain this stuff. Over and over again for almost four years now. Unreal.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
www.headstonesband.com
not sure why you keep beating this dead fucking horse.
www.headstonesband.com
An analytics news site like 538 will explain the 'how' of a prediction. Namely, the margin of error of state-level polls is aggregated to convey a national statistic, based on the number of EC seats allocated to each state. When they do this aggregation, the data + error potential will come out with a range from worst-case to best-case. Where those summed up numbers sit relative to the 'win/loss' line, establishes the probability of victory, but it's absolutely a product of how the individual states perform, and whether the error margin tips the scale in favour or away. From what I recall, all state-level predictions were quite accurate (i.e. outcomes within the data + error potential range in most cases).
This paints a very different picture of the reality than the way the media portrayed this - with one data value (i.e. the probability of a national victory) to convey all of this detail. Like most soundbites, it does a piss-poor job of that. That's no fault of a news consumer - it's more a byproduct of the media's pivoted primary purpose of entertainment (where it used to be information).
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The Comey effect made sense...and that is what Nate Silver hung his hat on. The polls just didn't have time to react to that bullshit.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana