I told you the polls were bullshit

[kaz]

I'm not sure we're saying anything different in the end. The media certainly spun the numbers. That is 2 out of 4 elections they were just materially wrong in their reporting of exit poll results

Oh, exit polls. I was talking about those like the ones used @ RCP.

It's both

 

[Redfish]

Yet they were very accurate, so what's the problem? All I said was the numbers were accurate, how the numbers were used was not. I was commenting on your post, I'm not seeing we have a real disagreement

They were within the MOE, but not necessarily accurate. I really believe that there was some fluffery going on, and use of the MOE as plausible deniability.

I'm not sure what that means since being within the MOE means the numbers were accurate. How can it be inaccurate when it's accurate?

Where I agree with you again is the interpretation of the numbers. The media

1) Blends the national numbers implying Hillary is going better than she is in the electoral college
2) Didn't care they were causing observation error in battleground States. The left has been so malicious and belligerent, it was reasonably foreseeable not all Trump supporters would say that to the media

The pollsters skewed their samples and their conclusions to make it look like the hildebeast could not be beaten. They are political operatives, not statisticians. Its a game and most of the population is taken in by it because they most times manage to be within the MOE. You seem to understand, but many do not.

 

[paulitician]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

the pollsters were complicit with the DNC and the media in trying to discourage Trump voters. They were trying to influence public opinion rather than reporting on it. Not to mention that the tiny samples they use are statistically meaningless.

Credible American Journalism is officially dead.

 

[Redfish]

and I was right.

Clinton is likely going to end up winning the popular vote. The national poll average will end up being off by about 3 points.

Yes, both may be true, after the fact. '

Believe what makes you feel good. Your candidate lost, she is a two time loser and a corrupt lying *****. The Clinton crime family will never be in political power again, and that's good for our country

 

[Redfish]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

the pollsters were complicit with the DNC and the media in trying to discourage Trump voters. They were trying to influence public opinion rather than reporting on it. Not to mention that the tiny samples they use are statistically meaningless.

Credible American Journalism is officially dead.

this may force it back. The media got a pretty strong message last night that we are tired of their bias and lies. Will they change? probably not unless their ratings and income take a strong hit. Boycott them.

 

[Pop23]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

This is correct.

Clintons votes came from deep blue states. The deep blue states are also very large population bases.

National polls will call those states more than others.

Calling those states with surplus votes and not identifying that surplus and how they skew the poll is not the pollsters job.

She needed a 3.9% lead in the national poll to be competitive in the swing states because of the surplus she banked in the blue states. She didn't have that.

Any national poll showing her between a tie and 2% lead actually did a pretty good job. Any poll showing trump up actually didn't do all that well.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

and I was right.

Much of the world knew a few hours after voting concluded that Donald Trump will be the 45th president of the United States, based on the tally of electoral college votes. But as of Wednesday morning, Hillary Clinton was still leading in the popular vote, by a margin of 135,495. Clinton had 59,186,057 votes, while Trump had garnered 59,049,470.

 

[Redfish]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

This is correct.

Clintons votes came from deep blue states. The deep blue states are also very large population bases.

National polls will call those states more than others.

Calling those states with surplus votes and not identifying that surplus and how they skew the poll is not the pollsters job.

She needed a 3.9% lead in the national poll to be competitive in the swing states because of the surplus she banked in the blue states. She didn't have that.

Any national poll showing her between a tie and 2% lead actually did a pretty good job. Any poll showing trump up actually didn't do all that well.

I get all that. I am trying to discuss statistics and the absolutes of mathematics.

Yes, the pollsters usually get it quite close, but not because of math. They get it right because we all know the answer before the poll is taken.

Vegas had Clinton with an 80% chance of winning--------------were they right? But it really doesn't matter because the bookies win no matter who wins the election because they have people betting on both sides-----------another fact that most don't understand "I beat the bookie" is never true.

 

[tycho1572]

I enjoyed watching the libs get their hopes up. lol

 

[Redfish]

I enjoyed watching the libs get their hopes up. lol

not as much as I enjoyed watching their hopes crash into oblivion.

 

[miketx]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

Yes the polls were right. President Clinton is on track. Goddam you people are morons.

 

[Pop23]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

This is correct.

Clintons votes came from deep blue states. The deep blue states are also very large population bases.

National polls will call those states more than others.

Calling those states with surplus votes and not identifying that surplus and how they skew the poll is not the pollsters job.

She needed a 3.9% lead in the national poll to be competitive in the swing states because of the surplus she banked in the blue states. She didn't have that.

Any national poll showing her between a tie and 2% lead actually did a pretty good job. Any poll showing trump up actually didn't do all that well.

I get all that. I am trying to discuss statistics and the absolutes of mathematics.

Yes, the pollsters usually get it quite close, but not because of math. They get it right because we all know the answer before the poll is taken.

Vegas had Clinton with an 80% chance of winning--------------were they right? But it really doesn't matter because the bookies win no matter who wins the election because they have people betting on both sides-----------another fact that most don't understand "I beat the bookie" is never true.

Fish, I pocketed a nice wad of cash because I understand how to adjust for vote surplus. I called this thing two weeks ago and posted about it.

The polls only do what polls do. Yes it's important to understand who they call, but not nearly as important as understanding where they call.

 

[kaz]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

Yes the polls were right. President Clinton is on track. Goddam you people are morons.

Talk about being a moron, try to actually read what I said

 

[miketx]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

Yes the polls were right. President Clinton is on track. Goddam you people are morons.

Talk about being a moron, try to actually read what I said

Must be stupid. You said the polls were not wrong. I agreed.

 

[kaz]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

Yes the polls were right. President Clinton is on track. Goddam you people are morons.

Talk about being a moron, try to actually read what I said

Must be stupid. You said the polls were not wrong. I agreed.

You agreed with me while calling me a moron? Read my post. Geez, man, I addressed that. I did not say the press was honest

 

[miketx]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

Yes the polls were right. President Clinton is on track. Goddam you people are morons.

Talk about being a moron, try to actually read what I said

Must be stupid. You said the polls were not wrong. I agreed.

You agreed with me while calling me a moron? Read my post. Geez, man, I addressed that. I did not say the press was honest

Well then I owe you an apology. There's so many liberal idiots here sometimes I get confused. My bad.

 

[keepitreal]

and I was right.

The polls weren't wrong, it was the interpretation of them that was wrong. Hillary won the popular vote by a small margin as indicated by the polls, they accurately identified the battleground States and it was pretty much the States that were indicated as being closest that Trump flipped. The result was also within the margin of error.

The part that was wrong was observation error. If you for example film a worker who knows you're observing them do a process, they won't make as many mistakes because they know you're watching them. Your observing the process changes the results.

In this case, the anti-Trump leftist demagoguery did cause observation error in exit polls. A small percentage of people didn't want to get into admitting they are voting for Trump and potentially get into it with a hate filled leftist moonbat. It was enough in the closest States to make the difference. The media did not account for how their vitriol to Trump could effect the answers they got at the polls

I understand what ur getting at but, this is where I see it differently.

They can't be responsible for misinterpreting expected votes,
cuz people lied about who they were actually voting for.

What everyone in the media, her campaign team, and even,
some posters here, got wrong and took for granted,
was the Latino, African American and female voters
they actually expected, would come out in droves to vote for her.

What the talking heads, media, Hillary, the Democrats,
the Republicans, were blindsided by and didn't see coming
because they haven't been seen or heard from...

was the droves of white, pissed off, had enough, voters,
that didn't voted in the last election or haven't been voting!

They all should have been able to see what was brewing,
when Trump walked away with the nomination in the primaries!

 

[Pop23]

and I was right.

Much of the world knew a few hours after voting concluded that Donald Trump will be the 45th president of the United States, based on the tally of electoral college votes. But as of Wednesday morning, Hillary Clinton was still leading in the popular vote, by a margin of 135,495. Clinton had 59,186,057 votes, while Trump had garnered 59,049,470.

You sure typed a whole lot that mean absolutely nothing.

You might want to take a civic class.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and I was right.

Clinton is likely going to end up winning the popular vote. The national poll average will end up being off by about 3 points.

Yes, both may be true, after the fact. '

Believe what makes you feel good. Your candidate lost, she is a two time loser and a corrupt lying *****. The Clinton crime family will never be in political power again, and that's good for our country

Stop crying and address the points.

 

[Redfish]

and I was right.

Clinton is likely going to end up winning the popular vote. The national poll average will end up being off by about 3 points.

Yes, both may be true, after the fact. '

Believe what makes you feel good. Your candidate lost, she is a two time loser and a corrupt lying *****. The Clinton crime family will never be in political power again, and that's good for our country

Stop crying and address the points.

make one and I will address it.

yes, hilly won the popular vote. mainly because of California and New York and big cities where there are high numbers of people. We have the EC so that a few cities cannot decide our elections. Without the EC many people would have no voice in presidential elections.

Sorry your heroine lost, but she lost because she is a corrupt lying person and a very unlikeable candidate. Not because of whitelash, sexism, or any of the other excuses being dreamed up by you sore losers.

Just think, Hillary Clinton is a two time loser. She lost to the black guy and to the guy who had never held any elected office. LOSER.