I would say that is accurate for sure. Clinton's average national polling lead was about 3% and that was about her popular vote margin.
The Democratic wave is growing, just how big will it be?
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
I would say that is accurate for sure. Clinton's average national polling lead was about 3% and that was about her popular vote margin.
cawacko
Well-known member
But as you know we elect our President based on the EC and most pre election polling showed Clinton winning the EC.
Right, but the question was regarding the polls. The assertion from one of the posters here was that the polls can't be trusted because they predicted Hillary would win. But the thing is, she did win the popular vote since that's what the polls measured. So to pretend that polling isn't accurate, or can't be trusted because Trump won the EC despite losing the popular vote by the margin the pollster predicted, is gaslighting.
nate silver wasn't just predicting popular vote, but the overall chances of winning. same deal is going on now. I don't know why it's so hard for some liberals to just be like "yeah we are overwhelming favorites, it looks good for us" and leave it at that.
but no. they have to deny statistical reality.. and for what reason? to make themselves feel better for a few months?
My offer stands to anyone that wants to take it. I'm not taking 2:1 because that would be even money, and clearly all the liberals on here think there is no way republicans have a 33% shot. So I am taking them at about 16% for 5:1. More than fair imo. If multiple people want to get in, we can have damo escrow via paypal. There wont be any murky details. the bet is who has control of the house after the midterms. Damo holds the money (or someone else trustworthy agreed on by both parties), and he holds it and then releases it to the winner.
If people want to go smaller that's fine too. someones 1k vs. my 200? sure. 100 v. my 20? I'm down. lets start some action.
no, polls were also concerninc the E.C. nate silver would access an overall probability. huffpost and others did so as well. the e.c. was always taken into account.
JFC. NO THEY WEREN'T.
National Polls predicted Hillary would win by about 3%, and she did.
I don't know why you think a national poll measures the EC when it doesn't.
And she still lost. Go figure.
cawacko
Well-known member
To each his own but to me the most important polling in any race is who is going to win. So the polls predicting the EC winner were mostly wrong. (I was wrong as well. I didn't think Trump had a chance). Another poster just said Dems have an 11% lead. That very well may be true but that doesn't necessarily tell us who will win each individual race. At the end of the day if a candidate wins by one vote or by a million they win one seat.
I never said national polls didn't predict hillary by 3%, retard.
I don't know what you think I'm arguing?Y
nate silver literally was looking at overall metrics. Not just popular vote. Multiple outlets were doing this, assessing overall probability of winning BASED on national popular vote, which translates in part to an electoral college advantage.
and while there isn't a 1:1 correlation between the national popular vote and the electoral college win, there IS correlation.
Was this a sentence? I bet it read better in its original Cyrillic.
Anywho, we were talking about the national polls, not Silver's interpretation of them. The National Polls showed HRC winning by 3%, which was her popular vote margin.
No poll measured the EC. And Silver's prediction was based on NATIONAL POLLS.
Why is it that Conservatives have to lie about every single fucking thing? What's with that pathology? Why do you feel compelled to just lie your asses off all the time about everything? I think it's because your parents did a shit job raising you, and filled your tiny mind with delusions of grandeur. The reality is that you're just a bunch of underachieving nobodies.
the polls weren't "wrong"
If a poll says hillary has a 2:1 shot of winning the E.C. and she ends up losing, that doesn't make that prediction incorrect, because the prediction is also taking into account clinton losing.
A better way of looking at it is if we ran that election out with similar metrics over a much wider sample size, say 1000 elections, you would expect clinton to win roughly 2/3rds the time. That doesn't mean that when she does lose, that the polls were "wrong."
So the polls were right that she would win the popular vote by about 3%.
So why are you trying to gaslight polls today?
you are a very stupid individual. you are arguing things I am not even talking about. You are in way over your head here.
cawacko
Well-known member
Fair enough. How about most of the national political pundits who used the polling data were wrong?
Hold on.
Back up.
You tried to indict the polling by claiming that the polls can't be trusted because Clinton didn't win the election, despite winning the popular vote by the same margin the polls all predicted.
So before we can move on and let you have your bottle, you need to be held accountable for the attempted gaslighting you just tried to do. Why were you trying to gaslight polling when the polling was accurate in 2016? The polls showed Clinton winning nationally by 2-3% and that was her actual popular vote margin. So would you say you were wrong when you were trying to gaslight polling data by very duplicitous pretending it had anything to do with the Electoral College?
It's actions like the one you took here that makes me think you're a piece of shit garbage person, and why I have absolutely no respect for you.
I am one of the only conservatives on JPP since the election that never has said the polls were wrong. What I have said is people made wrongful interpretations of the polls, or that they didn't understand variance.
I don't think people were wrong for reporting what the polls were saying, where I take issue with are people not understanding how common a 30% shot actually is. Or they would see a poll with trump at a 15% chance and think it's completely over. That type of analysis is simply not accurate. People were taking very reasonable probabilistic occurrences and rounding them down to zero. When you do that, you are getting an inaccurate picture of the electoral landscape.
Your argument is that we shouldn't trust the polling of today's midterms because the national polls back in 2016 correctly predicted Hillary would win by about 3%.
Then you tried to pretend that all those National Polls, which were straight up polls, included the EC when they clearly didn't.
So what you're trying to do is gaslight polling data today so you don't have to accept the inevitable conclusion that the GOP is going to get wiped out in November. Bigly.
What I want to know is why are you doing that if not for the reason I gave above?
And she (thankfully) is still not President. Not sure what your point is here other than your obvious oblivion to how our elections work.
We're not talking about Nate Silver, we were talking about the reliability of polls.
And all those polls showed Clinton winning by a margin of about 3% which was her actual margin of victory.
So it seems to me like you are trying to pretend that Silver's analysis of polls is somehow representative of the polls themselves, and you're doing that to gaslight the recent polls showing a pretty huge Democratic margin. So it would appear you're trying to gaslight midterm polls just to feel better about yourself.
Your argument is that we should not rely on polls because they accurately predicted Clinton's margin in 2016.