I told you the polls were bullshit

[Redfish]

and I was right.

 

[Meathead]

Yes they were. Absolute BS.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I knew they were in deep shit when they were still campaigning in Michigan and Pennsylvania last week.

 

[kaz]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

 

[kaz]

I knew they were in deep shit when they were still campaigning in Michigan and Pennsylvania last week.

Yes, I had the same thought

 

[Redfish]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

the pollsters were complicit with the DNC and the media in trying to discourage Trump voters. They were trying to influence public opinion rather than reporting on it. Not to mention that the tiny samples they use are statistically meaningless.

 

[kaz]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

the pollsters were complicit with the DNC and the media in trying to discourage Trump voters. They were trying to influence public opinion rather than reporting on it. Not to mention that the tiny samples they use are statistically meaningless.

Yet they were very accurate, so what's the problem? All I said was the numbers were accurate, how the numbers were used was not. I was commenting on your post, I'm not seeing we have a real disagreement

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Yet they were very accurate, so what's the problem? All I said was the numbers were accurate, how the numbers were used was not. I was commenting on your post, I'm not seeing we have a real disagreement

They were within the MOE, but not necessarily accurate. I really believe that there was some fluffery going on, and use of the MOE as plausible deniability.

 

[Timmy]

I think I'll become a political pundit ! I'm just as qualified as all these no nothings on tv .

 

[Meathead]

I think I'll become a political pundit ! I'm just as qualified as all these no nothings on tv .

Why don't you become a pollster instead. They need more people of your caliber.

 

[kaz]

Yet they were very accurate, so what's the problem? All I said was the numbers were accurate, how the numbers were used was not. I was commenting on your post, I'm not seeing we have a real disagreement

They were within the MOE, but not necessarily accurate. I really believe that there was some fluffery going on, and use of the MOE as plausible deniability.

I'm not sure what that means since being within the MOE means the numbers were accurate. How can it be inaccurate when it's accurate?

Where I agree with you again is the interpretation of the numbers. The media

1) Blends the national numbers implying Hillary is going better than she is in the electoral college
2) Didn't care they were causing observation error in battleground States. The left has been so malicious and belligerent, it was reasonably foreseeable not all Trump supporters would say that to the media

 

[kaz]

I think I'll become a political pundit ! I'm just as qualified as all these no nothings on tv .

No, you're not. That's no defense of the pundits

 

[kaz]

I think I'll become a political pundit ! I'm just as qualified as all these no nothings on tv .

Why don't you become a pollster instead. They need more people of your caliber.

He was dead on with the poll he took. 100% of the voters in his kitchen were for Hillary ...

 

[jc456]

and I was right.

as was I. I'm just saying, I took enough shit from the left in here cause I told them they were full of shit. I had someone constantly popping up some fk up who called the last three presidential elections or something, I stated it wasn't a normal presidential election. Wow. the left never understood that.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I'm not sure what that means since being within the MOE means the numbers were accurate. How can it be inaccurate when it's accurate?

Where I agree with you again is the interpretation of the numbers. The media

1) Blends the national numbers implying Hillary is going better than she is in the electoral college
2) Didn't care they were causing observation error in battleground States. The left has been so malicious and belligerent, it was reasonably foreseeable not all Trump supporters would say that to the media

What I mean is that they took the numbers they had, established a MOE, then jimmied the numbers the way they wanted them to go within that MOE. Inaccurate, but with plausible deniability.

Given that it's now completely above board that media outlets are playing active advocacy roles for certain candidates, this scenario is completely plausible.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure what that means since being within the MOE means the numbers were accurate. How can it be inaccurate when it's accurate?

Where I agree with you again is the interpretation of the numbers. The media

1) Blends the national numbers implying Hillary is going better than she is in the electoral college
2) Didn't care they were causing observation error in battleground States. The left has been so malicious and belligerent, it was reasonably foreseeable not all Trump supporters would say that to the media

What I mean is that they took the numbers they had, established a MOE, then jimmied the numbers the way they wanted them to go within that MOE. Inaccurate, but with plausible deniability.

Given that it's now completely above board that media outlets are playing active advocacy roles for certain candidates, this scenario is completely plausible.

I'm not sure we're saying anything different in the end. The media certainly spun the numbers. That is 2 out of 4 elections they were just materially wrong in their reporting of exit poll results

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I'm not sure we're saying anything different in the end. The media certainly spun the numbers. That is 2 out of 4 elections they were just materially wrong in their reporting of exit poll results

Oh, exit polls. I was talking about those like the ones used @ RCP.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

According to the exit polls this morning......they are saying that most people already had their minds made up back in September.....before all the BS came out

 

[jc456]

the media got taken by the people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and I was right.

Clinton is likely going to end up winning the popular vote. The national poll average will end up being off by about 3 points.