miketx
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2015
- 121,555
- 70,523
- 2,645
- Banned
- #121
You're a liar. You filth are the ones that disagree with everything unless it agrees with your sick views.Fair enough - there was a LOT of major events happening at the 11th hour that election.No, it does not considering he cited picture of a poll in FLORIDA, not a national poll.
So, in Aug she had +5% lead in the popular vote (which is what those polls ask about) . The poll has a listed margin of error of +/- 3%.
She won the popular vote by 2.1%, so the results were correct within the margin of error.
Also, this poll was not a prediction of the future, it was a snapshot in time of who people would have voted for the day the poll was taken.
Between Aug and Nov Hillary had quit campaigning and had an FBI investigation reopened on her.
Seems that poll did a pretty good job.
National popularity polling was pretty accurate. Unfortunately for those in the business of predicting the election, national popularity polling is utterly irrelevant and meaningless. What matters are state by state polls and those were absolutely abysmal.
I missed that, thanks for the correction.
Again, it was in August, to say it was wrong misses the fact that a lot happened between Aug 10 and early Nov
I stand by my point though that the polling done state by state was wildly inaccurate. The only polling that was accurate was national polling which is meant to generate discussion/news more than it is meant to actually predict election outcomes. It is rather clear to me that the pollsters were flatly incorrect in their assumptions.
Declaring 2016 polling accurate is revisionist history. I find it no more or less silly than the wingers here trying to declare current polling as irrelevant (until it says what they want that is).
