Pollsters got it wrong in last presidential election

May 2007
4,766
2,377
your place
#1
The pollsters didn't just get it a little bit wrong. They got it completely wrong. The Hillary Clinton apologists will try and take up for the pollsters but they are wrong also.


If you flip a coin 5 times, the odds that you will get the same result in each of the five coin flips is one 1 of 32. That means there is a 97 percent chance it won’t happen.


In the election, there were at least 5 states where the pollsters reported that Hillary was more likely to win. The Hillary apologists will say that because of the “margin of error” all those states were a pretty much a “coin flip”. Even if the states were a coin flip, the statistical probability that Trump would win every coin flip were very very low.

The media presented the poll numbers and the media consumers ate it up. That is why everybody, including the media was so shocked that Trump won. People are still shocked that Trump won.


The fact is that the pollsters got it wrong. Their poll results were not a reliable indicator of what was going to happen. They really didn’t have a clue. Their methodology was unquestionably flawed.
 
Jul 2014
37,534
9,864
midwest
#2
The Hillary worshippers and Trump Haters will have a different view of this.

They love revisionist history when it comes to Hillarys amazing defeat and all the polls at that time...
 
Last edited:
Likes: orangecat
Feb 2010
34,205
24,027
between Moon and NYC
#3
The Donald Trump election victory in 2016 was certainly a surprise to many/most. <raises hand>

But believe the misfire on polling predictions/data was mostly in the mid-west and rust belt. (Pennsylvania across through Wisconsin.) Which is where The Donald pulled out the Electoral College bonanza.

That regional subset all went with Trump by a relatively small margin....to some degree due to Hillary's campaign strategy (i.e. "fuckup").

Don't remember a lot of surprises throughout the rest of the country. (Mebbe Florida a little...)






..
 
Mar 2019
575
880
TN
#4
The pollsters didn't just get it a little bit wrong. They got it completely wrong. The Hillary Clinton apologists will try and take up for the pollsters but they are wrong also.


If you flip a coin 5 times, the odds that you will get the same result in each of the five coin flips is one 1 of 32. That means there is a 97 percent chance it won’t happen.


In the election, there were at least 5 states where the pollsters reported that Hillary was more likely to win. The Hillary apologists will say that because of the “margin of error” all those states were a pretty much a “coin flip”. Even if the states were a coin flip, the statistical probability that Trump would win every coin flip were very very low.

The media presented the poll numbers and the media consumers ate it up. That is why everybody, including the media was so shocked that Trump won. People are still shocked that Trump won.


The fact is that the pollsters got it wrong. Their poll results were not a reliable indicator of what was going to happen. They really didn’t have a clue. Their methodology was unquestionably flawed.

I'm sorry how is pointing out a FACT makes someone an apologist ??? The FACT is, most of the polls I saw had Hillary ahead by 2 to 5 points. I don't remember seeing any national polls that had her winning by a wider margin. It was always going to be a very close race, even before the email dump !! The other FACT is, most of those polls had an error margin of plus or minus 3 or 4 points !!! The other FACT is, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump. So, were the polls REALLY all that far off ?? Was their methodology really so flawed ?? If they had had her ahead by double digits and she lost, yeah you can say they really really got it wrong. But when the margin of the win was within the margin of error ?? Not so much !
 
May 2007
4,766
2,377
your place
#5
The Donald Trump election victory in 2016 was certainly a surprise to many/most. <raises hand>

But believe the misfire on polling predictions/data was mostly in the mid-west and rust belt. (Pennsylvania across through Wisconsin.) Which is where The Donald pulled out the Electoral College bonanza.

That regional subset all went with Trump by a relatively small margin....to some degree due to Hillary's campaign strategy (i.e. "fuckup").

Don't remember a lot of surprises throughout the rest of the country. (Mebbe Florida a little...)






..

Regardless of which region of the country it was, there were individual polls done in each state. The statistical probability that Trump would win each of those “coin flips” is below 3 percent. Even though I am calling them “coin flips”, the polls had her slightly ahead in those states.

What that means is that there is at least a 97 percent probability that there were errors associated with the polling. The pollsters were making assumptions that were not true or not properly understanding the polling samples. There was some sort of flaw.

My point is that if Clinton apologists want to defend the pollsters and claim they somehow got it right even though they didn’t, then they should maybe accept that the polls are not something they should rely on in this election.

It may be that the media’s reporting of the poll numbers created complacency and since the media was pretty much reporting that Hillary had a lock on victory, some potential voters didn’t feel the urgency and stayed home.

Either way, it is a documented fact that the polls were not a reliable indicator of who was going to win the actual election.
 
Mar 2019
5,586
1,993
California
#6
I'm sorry how is pointing out a FACT makes someone an apologist ??? The FACT is, most of the polls I saw had Hillary ahead by 2 to 5 points. I don't remember seeing any national polls that had her winning by a wider margin. It was always going to be a very close race, even before the email dump !! The other FACT is, most of those polls had an error margin of plus or minus 3 or 4 points !!! The other FACT is, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump. So, were the polls REALLY all that far off ?? Was their methodology really so flawed ?? If they had had her ahead by double digits and she lost, yeah you can say they really really got it wrong. But when the margin of the win was within the margin of error ?? Not so much !
For a while Y'all were talking sense. Then ya got to the "Popular Vote". Once again. It doesn't count. WHY? Because the framers of the Country didn't want one or two big cities running the Country. Do the Math without DC , LA County ,and NYC.
 
May 2007
4,766
2,377
your place
#8
I'm sorry how is pointing out a FACT makes someone an apologist ??? The FACT is, most of the polls I saw had Hillary ahead by 2 to 5 points. I don't remember seeing any national polls that had her winning by a wider margin. It was always going to be a very close race, even before the email dump !! The other FACT is, most of those polls had an error margin of plus or minus 3 or 4 points !!! The other FACT is, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump. So, were the polls REALLY all that far off ?? Was their methodology really so flawed ?? If they had had her ahead by double digits and she lost, yeah you can say they really really got it wrong. But when the margin of the win was within the margin of error ?? Not so much !
You didn’t read what I said.

If the polls said Hillary was ahead by “2 to 5 points”, as you said, then keep in mind that there was individual polling done in each state. If in 5 states it was a “coin flip”, the statistical probability of winning all those coin flips is below 2 or 3 percent. Therefore, the results of the election mean that there was only a 2 to 3 percent probability that the polling was not flawed in some way.

Hillary blew the election, the Hillary apologists will defend the pollsters because they think it somehow validates Hillary. It doesn’t. She blew it and she is the reason Trump won.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
67,685
56,744
CA
#9
Apr 2012
911
970
#10
If the pollsters were asking TV watchers they were polling people who had Trump shoved at them constantly and saw Hillary gushed over as the prime Demo choice.

The media is always supporting the corporate candidates over progressives. And people mostly vote according to the ads and media hype.
 
Likes: Friday13