Yeah, the polls had Hillary winning easily in 2016. Don't trust them.
They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win. If you predict 90% chance that something will happen, and it always happens, your prediction is wrong because you should have predicted 100%.
When I hear someone say "you can't trust the polls because they got 2016 'wrong'" they are just telling me they don't understand statistics.
They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win
And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.
And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. Many polls just look at the popular vote, but most of the polls that claim "chance of winning" take into account the EC.
538 had her going into the election with a 70% chance of winning the electoral college. Nate Silver also went on multiple shows basically doing everything he could to get people to understand that meant 3 out of 10 times she loses.
No, 538 (and RCP?) actually has a rolling projection of 'real' chance to win the EC. But the chances of Hillary declined from >90% to 70% in the last week or so. When she was >90% everybody would say it looked like she was going to win, and that's what people remember.
But the chances of Hillary declined from >90% to 70% in the last week or so.
Oh yeah, the Comey Probe. Back in the days when having the FBI open an investigation into you was enough to kill your presidential aspirations.
Or at least that was the case for Hillary Clinton and the moderate voter bloc, but somehow Donald Trump is not held to such high standards.
It's been awhile since I read anything about that, but it seems like the last time I read about it, was something along: "80% of polls have Hillary projected to win", but the actual polls that they were using were all almost within the margin of error.
tl;dr 80% had Hillary winning by about 2-3%.
margin of error
People in almost never speak about the margin of error when presenting a poll, especially one that's favorable to them.
f you look at the fine print, and see the margin of error percentage, then you apply the maximum amount to both people in the race, you'll see a lot of times it's a tie.
I understand the point you're making about probabilities, but we're speaking in the context of politics. Polls accurately predicted the results in 2008 and 2012. Something fundamentally changed in 2016, and the polls were off across the board.
And in reality we are talking about an weighted error difference of about 1.3/1.5 points between 2008/2012 and 2016. It's not like they got it massively wrong.
You said something changed, and then I showed how last election they were actually more accurate than in the past. And I already pointed out that they were "wrong" about 2016. So I'm not sure what your point is about this.
they are just telling me they don’t understand statistics.
You're right, but in fairness to the regular person who gets their news from regular news outlets, they were being told that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning when in reality it was more like 75%. The fact is while everyone was cocky in 2016 and nervous in 2020 I was the opposite because I followed the polls and Biden in 2020 had consistently bigger leads on Trump than Clinton in 2016 with even bigger leads in swing states. His odds of winning were much greater than hers and the likely margin of victory was much higher, but they were being underestimated by a media machine that was absolutely snakebit after going all in on congratulating HRC in June for being the first woman president with a dem supermajority in both houses of congress and flipping Texas blue.
What are you talking about? Polls are not valid statistics, they are riddled with biases that can't be eliminated.
Funny that this was in response to me and not the above poster that claimed that something happened in 2016 that made them no longer reliable.
Additionally, I suspect you don't really know what you are talking about because the issue you point out is not a statistical issue, but that they are just not a good measurement to begin with. Which isn't even a good point either because they do a pretty good job of consistently getting pretty close. In the last election the mean error was only about 4.3 and they didn't seem to favor either side.
Polls would be ok if the sample was peefectly random. However it is never fully random, and in practice they always overrepresent politically active people and underrepresent the poor.
the polls had Hillary winning easily
Well Hillary didnt pay off her hookers 2 weeks before the election... like that kinda means he cheated. So Id say its a lot harder to win when you play by the rules. And Im not defending Hillary cuz I know she shafted Bernie, but what she did is not even on the same scope as what donnie rapist did/does on a daily basis.
paying off hookers isn't actually cheating, the issue is that he used campaign funds to do it and that's fraud (but not electoral fraud)
They do and they don't. Some people see polls and say "why bother". Some people see polls and scream "GET OUT AND VOTE". They may not be indicative of the final outcome, but they are a motivating factor for a lot of people.
The first sane take in this whole thread. Modern polling is unreliable when the margins for victory in certain elections can come down to literally a single vote in some cases.
Show up and get counted when it matters.
Yeah, polls are stupid and useless; only the election day poll counts...though last week some idiot on here was desperately trying to defend polling is being both dependable and correct (as long as you throw out the ones that were wrong)
Vote Uncommitted.
That was for primaries. Now it's time to bury nazis.
Many states haven't had their primaries, like NY. But yes you are otherwise 100% correct
And quite a lot of Biden still supporting Genocide.
So uncommitted it is.
Oh, I see. You were just playing dumb to parrot "genocide joe." My bad. I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt.
You know at some point you're going to have to consider it's the moral obligation of Biden and the people supporting him sending weapons to Israel to change.
It's sad that you think playing dumb is a requirement to think that.
What's really sad is that you think what you're doing is going to change anyone's mind about how they're going to vote.
You can be angry at people like me accusing Joe Biden of supporting genocide but if you need our votes the choice in front of you is pretty simple. Keep defending Biden and risk democracy, or do everything you can to get Biden to compromise with us.
What’s really sad is that you think what you’re doing is going to change anyone’s mind about how they’re going to vote.
lol. My man, you asked a question, and I answered it (assuming you weren't being disingenuous). All I've done since then is call out your BS. There was no attempt to change anyone's vote. This is quite the projection.
So you're on here just to argue with people? Why?
The reason I'm here is to make sure people understand why we're not going to vote for Biden. I've provided some examples of things Biden could do differently that would change my mind. I'm here to combat these completely false narratives that "progressives and leftists will never be satisfied" and "they aren't reliable voters"
We can be reasoned with and we are reliable voters. I keep being told democracy is about compromise so here's the opportunity for Biden and Biden's supporters to compromise. If they're unwilling to do that they must not think democracy is all that valuable.
So you’re on here just to argue with people? Why?
No, I'm on here to defend reason, objectivity, and the facts. Which is why you find me so frustrating, as you want to pretend that you are a spokesperson for all progressives and make up facts to support your positions.
I don't see any interrogatives. why would you lie about something so easy to disprove?
My apologies, I figured that poster was the same one who asked the question.
So, to correct my post (it literally makes no difference, BTW):
lol. My man, youanother poster asked a question, and I answered it (assuming you weren’t being disingenuous). All I’ve done since then is call out your BS. There was no attempt to change anyone’s vote. This is quite the projection.
Does this effectively meaningless edit make you happy now?
They are more or less. It's part of why our primary system sucks. There's still downballot races though and you can and should vote for progressives to be the Democrat nominee in them. And you can cast a symbolic noncommitted for president to express displeasure with Biden.
Biden has more than half the total delegate count already pledged to him. Primaries are over, Biden has won regardless of the outcome of the remaining primaries and will be the democratic nominee in 2024.
What did anyone actually think Uncommitted was going to take the nomination or something?
Polls don't mean shit, go vote
Yeah, the polls had Hillary winning easily in 2016. Don't trust them.
They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win. If you predict 90% chance that something will happen, and it always happens, your prediction is wrong because you should have predicted 100%.
When I hear someone say "you can't trust the polls because they got 2016 'wrong'" they are just telling me they don't understand statistics.
And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. Many polls just look at the popular vote, but most of the polls that claim "chance of winning" take into account the EC.
538 had her going into the election with a 70% chance of winning the electoral college. Nate Silver also went on multiple shows basically doing everything he could to get people to understand that meant 3 out of 10 times she loses.
No, 538 (and RCP?) actually has a rolling projection of 'real' chance to win the EC. But the chances of Hillary declined from >90% to 70% in the last week or so. When she was >90% everybody would say it looked like she was going to win, and that's what people remember.
Oh yeah, the Comey Probe. Back in the days when having the FBI open an investigation into you was enough to kill your presidential aspirations.
Or at least that was the case for Hillary Clinton and the moderate voter bloc, but somehow Donald Trump is not held to such high standards.
It's been awhile since I read anything about that, but it seems like the last time I read about it, was something along: "80% of polls have Hillary projected to win", but the actual polls that they were using were all almost within the margin of error.
tl;dr 80% had Hillary winning by about 2-3%.
People in almost never speak about the margin of error when presenting a poll, especially one that's favorable to them.
f you look at the fine print, and see the margin of error percentage, then you apply the maximum amount to both people in the race, you'll see a lot of times it's a tie.
I understand the point you're making about probabilities, but we're speaking in the context of politics. Polls accurately predicted the results in 2008 and 2012. Something fundamentally changed in 2016, and the polls were off across the board.
And "polls were historically accurate" in 2022.
And in reality we are talking about an weighted error difference of about 1.3/1.5 points between 2008/2012 and 2016. It's not like they got it massively wrong.
Pollsters gave Hillary a 90% chance to win, likely because of over-representation of college graduates in polling, as well as a late shift in support in swing states.
You said something changed, and then I showed how last election they were actually more accurate than in the past. And I already pointed out that they were "wrong" about 2016. So I'm not sure what your point is about this.
You're right, but in fairness to the regular person who gets their news from regular news outlets, they were being told that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning when in reality it was more like 75%. The fact is while everyone was cocky in 2016 and nervous in 2020 I was the opposite because I followed the polls and Biden in 2020 had consistently bigger leads on Trump than Clinton in 2016 with even bigger leads in swing states. His odds of winning were much greater than hers and the likely margin of victory was much higher, but they were being underestimated by a media machine that was absolutely snakebit after going all in on congratulating HRC in June for being the first woman president with a dem supermajority in both houses of congress and flipping Texas blue.
What are you talking about? Polls are not valid statistics, they are riddled with biases that can't be eliminated.
Funny that this was in response to me and not the above poster that claimed that something happened in 2016 that made them no longer reliable.
Additionally, I suspect you don't really know what you are talking about because the issue you point out is not a statistical issue, but that they are just not a good measurement to begin with. Which isn't even a good point either because they do a pretty good job of consistently getting pretty close. In the last election the mean error was only about 4.3 and they didn't seem to favor either side.
Polls would be ok if the sample was peefectly random. However it is never fully random, and in practice they always overrepresent politically active people and underrepresent the poor.
Well Hillary didnt pay off her hookers 2 weeks before the election... like that kinda means he cheated. So Id say its a lot harder to win when you play by the rules. And Im not defending Hillary cuz I know she shafted Bernie, but what she did is not even on the same scope as what donnie rapist did/does on a daily basis.
paying off hookers isn't actually cheating, the issue is that he used campaign funds to do it and that's fraud (but not electoral fraud)
They do and they don't. Some people see polls and say "why bother". Some people see polls and scream "GET OUT AND VOTE". They may not be indicative of the final outcome, but they are a motivating factor for a lot of people.
The first sane take in this whole thread. Modern polling is unreliable when the margins for victory in certain elections can come down to literally a single vote in some cases.
Show up and get counted when it matters.
Yeah, polls are stupid and useless; only the election day poll counts...though last week some idiot on here was desperately trying to defend polling is being both dependable and correct (as long as you throw out the ones that were wrong)
Vote Uncommitted.
That was for primaries. Now it's time to bury nazis.
Many states haven't had their primaries, like NY. But yes you are otherwise 100% correct
Username checks out.
Are primaries over? I thought there was more https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/calendar
Officially? No. Effectively? Yes.
I'm seeing quite a few months of primaries to go
And quite a lot of Biden still supporting Genocide.
So uncommitted it is.
Oh, I see. You were just playing dumb to parrot "genocide joe." My bad. I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt.
You know at some point you're going to have to consider it's the moral obligation of Biden and the people supporting him sending weapons to Israel to change.
It's sad that you think playing dumb is a requirement to think that.
What's really sad is that you think what you're doing is going to change anyone's mind about how they're going to vote.
You can be angry at people like me accusing Joe Biden of supporting genocide but if you need our votes the choice in front of you is pretty simple. Keep defending Biden and risk democracy, or do everything you can to get Biden to compromise with us.
lol. My man, you asked a question, and I answered it (assuming you weren't being disingenuous). All I've done since then is call out your BS. There was no attempt to change anyone's vote. This is quite the projection.
So you're on here just to argue with people? Why?
The reason I'm here is to make sure people understand why we're not going to vote for Biden. I've provided some examples of things Biden could do differently that would change my mind. I'm here to combat these completely false narratives that "progressives and leftists will never be satisfied" and "they aren't reliable voters"
We can be reasoned with and we are reliable voters. I keep being told democracy is about compromise so here's the opportunity for Biden and Biden's supporters to compromise. If they're unwilling to do that they must not think democracy is all that valuable.
No, I'm on here to defend reason, objectivity, and the facts. Which is why you find me so frustrating, as you want to pretend that you are a spokesperson for all progressives and make up facts to support your positions.
I don't see any interrogatives. why would you lie about something so easy to disprove?
My apologies, I figured that poster was the same one who asked the question.
So, to correct my post (it literally makes no difference, BTW):
lol. My man,
youanother poster asked a question, and I answered it (assuming you weren’t being disingenuous). All I’ve done since then is call out your BS. There was no attempt to change anyone’s vote. This is quite the projection.Does this effectively meaningless edit make you happy now?
They are more or less. It's part of why our primary system sucks. There's still downballot races though and you can and should vote for progressives to be the Democrat nominee in them. And you can cast a symbolic noncommitted for president to express displeasure with Biden.
Biden has more than half the total delegate count already pledged to him. Primaries are over, Biden has won regardless of the outcome of the remaining primaries and will be the democratic nominee in 2024.
What did anyone actually think Uncommitted was going to take the nomination or something?
No.