PlayerUp wrote:TheStig wrote:I just found it odd she had odds.
The polling system is broken.
err...that's not polling
that's an obviously terrible non-professional prognostication model of polling data...probably being passed around by propagandists to try and dupe people into believing that polling is "broken." if so, given that you're a pizzagate conspiracy theory believer, you should strategically be one of the first they pass it to. here was the most respected political prognosticator on election eve:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/if someone with an outstanding track record told you you had a 29% chance of being murdered tomorrow, i'd question your sanity if you weren't scared ****less. and anyone who thought that hillary was a lock in 2016 didn't know what the hell they were talking about. she was up only 3% in composite polling on election eve. and won the popular vote by 2% while losing the electoral college
Also don't forget Romney vs Obama was pretty even in the polling but Obama crushed Romney during the actual election.
1) obama was the favorite all the way. same guy as above gave him a 91% chance heading into the election. that's significantly better than the "sure thing" hillary clinton
2) your definition of "crushed" is bizarre. obama won by 4% in the popular vote
Why polls are meaningless now in presidential elections as the actual election is determined by the moderates, silent majority and the casual voters.
yeah, uh...all those people are included in polls. in every contest. the strong majority of which end up w/ results roughly in line with the polling. i'll say it again: trump pulled an UPSET in 2016 because the undecideds went strongly for him at the last minute. it's rare that undecideds break that strongly in one direction. which is likely due in part to the fact that trump was the rare presidential candidate with a complete lack of a resume. that is no longer the case
a post-mortem conducted by polling agencies in 2016 concluded that the only structural issue w/ the polling was an overestimation of how many recent college grads would vote. if that constituted the polls being "broken", presumably the proper adjustments have been made. "broken" polling companies don't stay in business. and they are still in business. both presidential candidates are surely relying on polling strategically
you'll notice that nobody says "oddsmakers are useless" when there's an upset in a sporting contest. instead it's "that's why they play the game." when appalachian state beat michigan on opening weekend at michigan, nobody said that the oddsmakers, ALL of whom had michigan as a 30+ point favorite, didn't know what they were doing. indeed, 3 weeks later, michigan beat #10 penn state and app. st. lost to wofford. and if there had been a michigan-app. st. rematch, michigan would again have been a very heavy favorite. so even if trump actually DID only have a 2% chance of winning in 2016, that he actually pulled it out would hardly be evidence that "polling is broken." polling suggested to seasoned prognosticators that trump would have to roll a 1 on a six-sided die on election day to come out victorious. he did
the widespread idiocy of people dismissing polling because of a single data point is mind-blowing. and it shows a broad lack of societal competence when it comes to the ability to process information logically. which is how fake news and conspiracy theories proliferate
