Shame, some nice cringe there

how can the media convince the people of it's authority when they still remember how atrocious those poll numbers were?

Did the polls predict that more people would vote for Clinton?

excuse the jpg

this is just a sampling but most major media were giving out absurd poll numbers; either knowingly curated themselves or propagated by bots

these numbers made no sense juxtaposed next to the actual american political climate: you would remember a distinct lack of grassroots hillary support (bumper stickers and shit.) Especially considering the trump signs everywhere.

Those are odds they calculated based on the polling data. How can you know if they are inaccurate? If I tell you that the odds of rolling snake eyes is ~2.7%, and then you proceed to roll them, it doesn't make me a liar - the odds were exactly what they were. I never understood this argument.

well those totally transparent polls were horribly off

they grew visibly more uncomfortable

Can you show some examples of polls used by 538 and given a high reliability score that were horribly off, or are you just assuming that they were?

Can you show some examples of polls used by 538 and given a high reliability score that were horribly off, or are you just assuming that they were?

​

According to their own data selection (to the top left), this is based on "polls-only forecast".

​

​

538's website.

​

​

Right, the polls can be accurate and Trump can still win. I don't think you understand.
What about that means the polls were inaccurate?

I believe you are missing a very significant point. It wasn't one poll, and several of them were off double percentage points. Michigan, 80% chance that Clinton would win, day before the election. It wasn't off slightly, it was just dead wrong.

​

You're obviously into statistics, you tell me, what are the chances of almost every major professional being wrong 24 hours before Trump became the president elect? In Michigan alone, 75/86 polls showed Clinton winning. If it wasn't for "survey monkey" almost no polls showed him ahead.

Can you, with a straight face tell me that an 87% failure rate doesn't point to an issue with the sample demographics (or specific agenda)?

​

​

Schwing! Great post

You're obviously into statistics, you tell me, what are the chances of almost every major professional being wrong 24 hours before Trump became the president elect?

What are the odds of almost every observer being wrong about you rolling snake eyes right before you roll?

More people voted for Clinton, so we would expect to see the polling data favor her, no?

You have an exceedingly narrow view of polling. You're trying to compare it to a single roll of the dice. Meaning, it's apples and oranges.

It wasn't a single poll, it was 90 plus polls (in just this one state). These 90 polls were run as series dozens and dozens of times over the course of 18 months.

These same professionals LITERALLY laughed, on air and on the record that it was impossible for Trump to win. Nate Silver himself (since we are talking about 538, said that Clinton was over 99% chance to win.

"More people voted for Clinton". Well, that's a very narrow (and I would venture to say dumb statement). In the US, in case folks are unaware, states are the ones who elect a president. Not people. Now, if it's your argument that 538 based their predictions of an irrelevant data set, then we can both agree that they are incompetent and move on.

Give me examples of well-regarded (highly-weighted in 538's case) polls that were wildly off. Again - the poll data, not prediction percentages.

​

So we are in agreement. The states were close, but the polling was completely and totally wrong by a large margin.

I don't agree that the polling is wrong - I've seen no evidence of that.

If I were to poll 100, age 25, black males with no high school degree, the odds of Trump winning would be less than 1%.

You you run 1,000 polls with an 87% failure rate, the issue isn't the poll, it's who you are polling.

"you've offered nothing to backup your baseless assertion that "the polling was completely and totally wrong by a large margin".

I literally gave you a link to 538's actual website showing that 87% of the polls, that they used to make predictions, were wrong.

"You continue to conflate win prediction percentages with the polling data"

I'm not sure you know this, but 538 uses.. wait for it... polling data to make predictions. Is there some other data you think they rely on but don't tell anyone?

"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

So much for your assertion that "the polling was completely and totally wrong by a large margin".

538 was wrong, but wrote an article saying "we weren't wrong".

Yeah, you got me there.

Yes, he's just blatantly lying about the national polls not being wildly off. Okay, buddy.
I'll reconsider if you can show me any proof for you claim that they were, of course.

But they weren't.

This has been a long back and forth. I said the polls were wrong, you said they weren't.

We went back and forth all day and, there at the end, you send me a link on 538s own website explaining why they were wrong.

Never said he lied. Said he was wrong.

At the end of the day, it was an electoral ass whooping that your boy nate didnt see coming.

There are endless videos of election night coverage. No one on the left saw it coming.

Good, so then you now agree that the polls were not wildly off.

We'll be creating new OC for the next 6 years or so.

Uhm your links have meltdown vids? Is this a joke?

Yea I'm confused.

Should at least get some screen grabs now to see if any of the high view ones get taken down later.

Ahhhh thanks for the memories Hahahahaha! Good reminder.

They’re up, but the search algorithms are preventing them from showing up when you search them

God damnit, those meltdown compilations are some of my favorite videos!! Someone please start downloading/mirroring them. I would but I'm on mobile.

YouTube is such shit now. Remember the good old days when u could even watch movies illegally on y? Now its views go to the highest bidder. The first ammendment doesnt exist on the platform whatsoever anymore.

It's not the first amendment*, it's moreso that Youtube did not heavily pluck and manipulate their search results, invade users privacy, and censor en masse back in the day.

We can mostly thank Google for that one.

If this was true why would CNN’s channel still have THIS video up?

I have a feeling the polls are going to be off in the midterms by the same percentage it was off in 2016.

Trump is packing stadiums and there’s a lot of closet Trump voters that don’t participate in polls but they show up to vote.

It’ll be interesting to see... I just hope that the American people wake up and realize that they are being so heavily influenced.

Ahhhh thanks for the memories Hahahahaha! Good reminder.

They’re up, but the search algorithms are preventing them from showing up when you search them

You have an exceedingly narrow view of polling. You're trying to compare it to a single roll of the dice. Meaning, it's apples and oranges.

It wasn't a single poll, it was 90 plus polls (in just this one state). These 90 polls were run as series dozens and dozens of times over the course of 18 months.

These same professionals LITERALLY laughed, on air and on the record that it was impossible for Trump to win. Nate Silver himself (since we are talking about 538, said that Clinton was over 99% chance to win.

"More people voted for Clinton". Well, that's a very narrow (and I would venture to say dumb statement). In the US, in case folks are unaware, states are the ones who elect a president. Not people. Now, if it's your argument that 538 based their predictions of an irrelevant data set, then we can both agree that they are incompetent and move on.

"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

So much for your assertion that "the polling was completely and totally wrong by a large margin".

538 was wrong, but wrote an article saying "we weren't wrong".

Yeah, you got me there.