Failure Analysis: how respected polling agencies blew the Trump election

S

sear

serene
Failure Analysis: how could so many respected polling agencies gotten Trump's election wrong?

One explanation is, polled citizens were simply too ashamed to confess their preference for Trump, and so replied inaccurately to poll questions.

Perhaps it was that.

Perhaps a more important question:
should public opinion polling on presidential candidate races be restricted, either by self-imposed suspension by the polling agencies themselves, or as regulated by such agencies as the FCC?

Would we be better off if election day arrived; and the voters had no poll-driven expectation of the winner? Might that help promote a more accurate reflection of the mood of the country in the election outcome? Meaning, if right or wrong public opinion polls were predicting a Trump landslide for weeks before the election, would Hillary have won?
And if so, would that have been better.
 
another explanation is that they colluded with the establishment candidate to oversample her voters to provide the narrative that she was winning :)
 
sear said:
Failure Analysis: how could so many respected polling agencies gotten Trump's election wrong?

One explanation is, polled citizens were simply too ashamed to confess their preference for Trump, and so replied inaccurately to poll questions.

Perhaps it was that.

Perhaps a more important question:
should public opinion polling on presidential candidate races be restricted, either by self-imposed suspension by the polling agencies themselves, or as regulated by such agencies as the FCC?

Would we be better off if election day arrived; and the voters had no poll-driven expectation of the winner? Might that help promote a more accurate reflection of the mood of the country in the election outcome? Meaning, if right or wrong public opinion polls were predicting a Trump landslide for weeks before the election, would Hillary have won?
And if so, would that have been better.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

You really need to lay off of the hallucigenetics; because they're giving you a warped view of the facts.

:lol:
 
sear said:
Failure Analysis: how could so many respected polling agencies gotten Trump's election wrong?

One explanation is, polled citizens were simply too ashamed to confess their preference for Trump, and so replied inaccurately to poll questions.

Perhaps it was that.

Perhaps a more important question:
should public opinion polling on presidential candidate races be restricted, either by self-imposed suspension by the polling agencies themselves, or as regulated by such agencies as the FCC?

Would we be better off if election day arrived; and the voters had no poll-driven expectation of the winner? Might that help promote a more accurate reflection of the mood of the country in the election outcome? Meaning, if right or wrong public opinion polls were predicting a Trump landslide for weeks before the election, would Hillary have won?
And if so, would that have been better.
Click to expand...

Actually the polling didn't miss by much. The people reading the polls missed. I of course did not miss because I am smart and could read the tea leaves
 
Death Watch said:
Actually the polling didn't miss by much. The people reading the polls missed. I of course did not miss because I am smart and could read the tea leaves
Click to expand...

the last few polls didnt since the companies know thats the only thing they are graded on. The polls leading up to it missed by a lot.
 
"I am smart and could read the tea leaves " DW #5
Click to expand...
She declared, more than a month AFTER the election.

PLEASE prove me wrong!
Please post a link to an unedited post under your pseud that predicted a Trump win, dated before election day.

This'll be fun.
 
sear said:
She declared, more than a month AFTER the election.

PLEASE prove me wrong!
Please post a link to an unedited post under your pseud that predicted a Trump win, dated before election day.

This'll be fun.
Click to expand...

we both did. Just check out the predictions thread. I had a 270towin map too.
 
#8
No URL. No link.

#9
That addresses ACCURACY.

This topic goes beyond that.
It's rather more a political Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that measuring the condition changes the condition.
 
There were several people here predicting a Trump win but I wasn't one of them.

What was remarkable was the over confidence on the Hillary side. It was a done deal to some of them even though Trump had a 30% chance of winning.

One in three isn't no chance lol. Not by a long shot.
 
Death Watch said:
Actually the polling didn't miss by much. The people reading the polls missed. I of course did not miss because I am smart and could read the tea leaves
Click to expand...

Lots of people misread the tea leaves.

And not just debate board hacks. Lots of highly paid pundits were no better than rank amateurs. If I sucked that bad at my job I'd get called into the office or worse lol.

It must be something like peer pressure that would prevent a millionaire pundit from saying 'you know, a one in three chance isn't really far below 50/50'. 'Trump could absolutely win this'.

Or 'you know, Trump consistently out preformed on his poll numbers in the primaries '. Or 'Trump clearly has the advantage in voter enthusiasm'.

In other words, making an objective analysis instead of getting sucked in and going along with the tide.
 
"There were several people here predicting a Trump win but I wasn't one of them." DHO #12
Click to expand...
Me too.
Interesting that not even the one that boasts about it is willing to post a quotation w/ URL.
How "convenient".
"What was remarkable was the over confidence on the Hillary side. It was a done deal to some of them even though Trump had a 30% chance of winning."
Click to expand...
I wouldn't attribute confidence level to Hillary.
I think whatever confidence level she may have had was from respected polling agencies that had her ahead FROM THE START!
Hillary was listed as leading, BEFORE ANYONE ELSE ENTERED THE RACE TO CHALLENGE HER, IN EITHER PARTY.

Blame that on Hillary "over confidence" if you like. It's how we team players operate.
 
sear said:
Me too.
Interesting that not even the one that boasts about it is willing to post a quotation w/ URL.
How "convenient".

I wouldn't attribute confidence level to Hillary.
I think whatever confidence level she may have had was from respected polling agencies that had her ahead FROM THE START!
Hillary was listed as leading, BEFORE ANYONE ELSE ENTERED THE RACE TO CHALLENGE HER, IN EITHER PARTY.

Blame that on Hillary "over confidence" if you like. It's how we team players operate.
Click to expand...

People were predicting a Trump win, I wouldn't say it if I didn't see it lol.

True, Hillary may not have been over confident.
 
the most likely factor is that while some folks polled preferred Hillary over Trump, they just didn't care enough to bother to actually vote......
 
polls can't predict turnout. they can only use "likely voters" from past elections.
Hillary was loathesome /Trump aspirational- Trump's turned out, her's not as much in swing states
 
"People were predicting a Trump win, I wouldn't say it if I didn't see it lol." DO
Click to expand...
Superb!
I'm not contradicting you.
I'm simply requesting confirmation.

If it is true.
IF IT IS TRUE.
IF IT IS TRUE
then SOMEbody should be able to provide a linked quotation to such comment.

That quoted link will corroborate:

a) whether it was a vague suspicion, ie: - I think Trump has a chance - vs I think Trump is going to win in a landslide!!
I'm not saying nobody posted it.
I'm merely observing that multiple claims have been made; yet not one single factual corroboration has been offered.

b) the date upon which the "bold" assertion was made.

#16

That would explain it.

BUT !!

If you read the fine print, you'll see that most polling agencies poll "likely voters".

Not "registered voters". "Likely" voters.

So either the polled lied, or the polling protocol failed.
 
anatta said:
polls can't predict turnout. they can only use "likely voters" from past elections.
Hillary was loathesome /Trump aspirational- Trump's turned out, her's not as much in swing states
Click to expand...

I amongst others were already saying basing it on past elections is flawed because blacks would not turn out as they did for hillary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top