Now You Know. Over 80% of State Polling Was Biased Against Trump.

[WelfareQueen]

A key quote from Nate Silver's website.


"In 41 of the 50 states, the average of the polls underestimated Donald Trump’s margin of victory."


It has been very amusing to see the excuses used by the main stream media and pollsters following their prediction debacle that Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

To recap: The New York Times said Clinton had a 95% probability of winning the White House. The Huffington Post said 99%. Nate Silver said 71.9%.

Larry Sabato and Nate Silver both predicted Hillary would win with 322 Electoral College votes. Ooppsie!

So why so wrong?

According to Nate Silver's site 41 out of 50 States polling was biased against Trump. In the key battleground States of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin the polling was off around 6%. Some States the polling was biased against Trump by as much as 15%.

So how does the media and polling organizations credibly explain getting over 80% of State polling wrong. And it is interesting to note in the 2014 mid-terms the pollsters were also heavily biased against the GOP and got things very wrong. Hmmmm....wonder why?


How Much The Polls Missed By In Every State

Sherry
theDoctorisIn
Statistikhengst

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yes we heard for months from you all about all the conservatives who were too ashamed to admit they supported Trump but would check his box on election day in secret

 

[WelfareQueen]

Yes we heard for months from you all about all the conservatives who were too ashamed to admit they supported Trump but would check his box on election day in secret

Yep...we were right and the Dims....Main stream media and every asshat political pundit in America was dead wrong.


Sweet!!!!

 

[beagle9]

A key quote from Nate Silver's website.


"In 41 of the 50 states, the average of the polls underestimated Donald Trump’s margin of victory."


It has been very amusing to see the excuses used by the main stream media and pollsters following their prediction debacle that Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

To recap: The New York Times said Clinton had a 95% probability of winning the White House. The Huffington Post said 99%. Nate Silver said 71.9%.

Larry Sabato and Nate Silver both predicted Hillary would win with 322 Electoral College votes. Ooppsie!

So why so wrong?

According to Nate Silver's site 41 out of 50 States polling was biased against Trump. In the key battleground States of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin the polling was off around 6%. Some States the polling was biased against Trump by as much as 15%.

So how does the media and polling organization credibly explain getting over 80% of State polling wrong. And it is interesting to note in the 2014 mid-terms the pollsters were also heavily biased against the GOP and got things very wrong. Hmmmm....wonder why?


How Much The Polls Missed By In Every State

Sherry
theDoctorisIn
Statistikhengst

. They got it wrong because they were manipulating the numbers and the message, and they got their liberal asses caught at it.

 

[Timmy]

WHEN were these polls done ?

Cause most polls were in margin of error by the election . Shit really shifted after the comey letter.

 

[WelfareQueen]

WHEN were these polls done ?

Cause most polls were in margin of error by the election . Shit really shifted after the comey letter.

Timmy....there is really no excuse when the 2016 Presidential Election boils down to seven or eight battleground States and the polling in each battleground was heavily biased against Trump!

The fix was clearly in....No credible argument can be made otherwise. When you know Pennsylvania for example is a critical State for a year...how do you fuck it up by 6 points?

No excuse Timmy...no fucking excuse.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Btw....the reason the polling was so wrong is because the pollsters intentionally over sampled Hillary Clinton core supporters (i.e. Black, Latinos and whites in urban areas). Some polling over-sampled this group by 10-12%.

Nate Silver said post election working class whites....particularly white men were largely under-sampled because pollsters knew this was Trump's core support.

Why sample people who are likely to support Trump when you know you won't like their answer? Clearly the media and pollsters representing them were trying to suppress Trump's turnout and influence the election. There is no other explanation. None.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A key quote from Nate Silver's website.


"In 41 of the 50 states, the average of the polls underestimated Donald Trump’s margin of victory."


It has been very amusing to see the excuses used by the main stream media and pollsters following their prediction debacle that Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

To recap: The New York Times said Clinton had a 95% probability of winning the White House. The Huffington Post said 99%. Nate Silver said 71.9%.

Larry Sabato and Nate Silver both predicted Hillary would win with 322 Electoral College votes. Ooppsie!

So why so wrong?

According to Nate Silver's site 41 out of 50 States polling was biased against Trump. In the key battleground States of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin the polling was off around 6%. Some States the polling was biased against Trump by as much as 15%.

So how does the media and polling organization credibly explain getting over 80% of State polling wrong. And it is interesting to note in the 2014 mid-terms the pollsters were also heavily biased against the GOP and got things very wrong. Hmmmm....wonder why?


How Much The Polls Missed By In Every State

Sherry
theDoctorisIn
Statistikhengst

. They got it wrong because they were manipulating the numbers and the message, and they got their liberal aces caught at it.

You're an idiot.

The Wisconsin poll average got it wrong.

The worst poll in that average? The REPUBLICAN Remington Research poll,

that had Clinton winning by 8 points.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Wisconsin: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

So shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Silver used the last THREE WEEKS of polls to compile the averages. That makes his so-called study useless.
Polls are snapshots, not fortune tellers. At most, the last week of polling is the appropriate yardstick.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Silver used the last THREE WEEKS of polls to compile the averages. That makes his so-called study useless.
Polls are snapshots, not fortune tellers. At most, the last week of polling is the appropriate yardstick.

The last three weeks should tell you what will happen in the election nitwit. The polling was dead wrong uniformly bias against Trump. That cannot be argued.

 

[Claudette]

A key quote from Nate Silver's website.


"In 41 of the 50 states, the average of the polls underestimated Donald Trump’s margin of victory."


It has been very amusing to see the excuses used by the main stream media and pollsters following their prediction debacle that Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

To recap: The New York Times said Clinton had a 95% probability of winning the White House. The Huffington Post said 99%. Nate Silver said 71.9%.

Larry Sabato and Nate Silver both predicted Hillary would win with 322 Electoral College votes. Ooppsie!

So why so wrong?

According to Nate Silver's site 41 out of 50 States polling was biased against Trump. In the key battleground States of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin the polling was off around 6%. Some States the polling was biased against Trump by as much as 15%.

So how does the media and polling organizations credibly explain getting over 80% of State polling wrong. And it is interesting to note in the 2014 mid-terms the pollsters were also heavily biased against the GOP and got things very wrong. Hmmmm....wonder why?


How Much The Polls Missed By In Every State

Sherry
theDoctorisIn
Statistikhengst

Doesn't surprise me at all.

They all thought he was a joke and were sure Hillary would be the next POTUS.

They, like Hillary, the DNC and everyone else missed the message Trump sent out.

The voters didn't miss that message.

He's now the President Elect and they are wondering what the hell happened.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Silver used the last THREE WEEKS of polls to compile the averages. That makes his so-called study useless.
Polls are snapshots, not fortune tellers. At most, the last week of polling is the appropriate yardstick.

The last three weeks should tell you what will happen in the election nitwit. The polling was dead wrong uniformly bias against Trump. That cannot be argued.

You don't know much about polls do you?

The poll average 3 weeks out had Clinton winning by 7. The final poll average, all within a week of the election, had her winning by 3.2. She won by 2 pts.

Obviously much changed in 3 weeks and therefore any poll 3 weeks out was not only obsolete,

but it was going to skew Silver's numbers to make it look like the polls were far more off than they really were.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, you know which poll was one of the worst in the 2 way matchup?

That LA Times poll that all the RWnuts around here were claiming was most accurate.

Its final poll had Trump winning the popular vote by 3 points. He lost by 2. A five point miss.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Silver used the last THREE WEEKS of polls to compile the averages. That makes his so-called study useless.
Polls are snapshots, not fortune tellers. At most, the last week of polling is the appropriate yardstick.

The last three weeks should tell you what will happen in the election nitwit. The polling was dead wrong uniformly bias against Trump. That cannot be argued.

You don't know much about polls do you?

The poll average 3 weeks out had Clinton winning by 7. The final poll average, all within a week of the election, had her winning by 3.2. She won by 2 pts.

Obviously much changed in 3 weeks and therefore any poll 3 weeks out was not only obsolete,

but it was going to skew Silver's numbers to make it look like the polls were far more off than they really were.

Not the State polls nitwit. That is the entire point of the thread. Look at the handy gragh from Nate Silver in the OP. The election was essentially down to 7 or 8 States. The polling was generally off between 3 to 8 points in those states, and it was uniformly against Trump.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

lol, you know which poll was one of the worst in the 2 way matchup?

That LA Times poll that all the RWnuts around here were claiming was most accurate.

Its final poll had Trump winning the popular vote by 3 points. He lost by 2. A five point miss.

Repeat after me....

"President Elect Donald J. Trump"

 

[NLT]

Statistikhengst

WQ...Scatenfaggenfuk has disappeared after he saw that you had his election prediction still in your Siggy....

STATISTIKHENGST SAID: ↑
And when Hillary wins on election night 2016 with 57% of the NPV and sails over 400 EV, I will just laugh at you.

 

[HenryBHough]

Yes we heard for months from you all about all the conservatives who were too ashamed to admit they supported Trump but would check his box on election day in secret

You seem to confuse the rational concern of Americans for the health and safety of their families - genuine concern about feral Democrat Party Thugs - with fear. There may be free counseling available to you. Note, "FREE" so you have ever possible reason to seek it out. Who knows, maybe if you complete the course you might get a free Obamaphone 7!

 

[beagle9]

Silver used the last THREE WEEKS of polls to compile the averages. That makes his so-called study useless.
Polls are snapshots, not fortune tellers. At most, the last week of polling is the appropriate yardstick.

The last three weeks should tell you what will happen in the election nitwit. The polling was dead wrong uniformly bias against Trump. That cannot be argued.

You don't know much about polls do you?

The poll average 3 weeks out had Clinton winning by 7. The final poll average, all within a week of the election, had her winning by 3.2. She won by 2 pts.

Obviously much changed in 3 weeks and therefore any poll 3 weeks out was not only obsolete,

but it was going to skew Silver's numbers to make it look like the polls were far more off than they really were.

. The thing your trying to avoid is the liberal biased interpretation of the polls who wanted so bad for their gal to win. They then used their bully pulpit (biased media outlets) to try and pull it all off. They got their aces kicked, and that's why their such sore losers. They are still trying to shore up the agenda in order to insulate it against the onslaught that's coming.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The reason the Polls were so wrong is because about 10 percent to 15 percent of each poll was undecided. And they broke for Trump. Hillary Clinton got her numbers they just were not enough when the polls ignored 10 to 15 percent of voters.

 

[westwall]

Silver used the last THREE WEEKS of polls to compile the averages. That makes his so-called study useless.
Polls are snapshots, not fortune tellers. At most, the last week of polling is the appropriate yardstick.

The last three weeks should tell you what will happen in the election nitwit. The polling was dead wrong uniformly bias against Trump. That cannot be argued.

You don't know much about polls do you?

The poll average 3 weeks out had Clinton winning by 7. The final poll average, all within a week of the election, had her winning by 3.2. She won by 2 pts.

Obviously much changed in 3 weeks and therefore any poll 3 weeks out was not only obsolete,

but it was going to skew Silver's numbers to make it look like the polls were far more off than they really were.

Clearly you don't because you were expecting a shrilary win.