LOL GOP

[Irvinecommuter]

The point I labor to make is that the media continue to trust polling and opinion that has been proven wrong again and again.  Like the 2016 election, I kept telling people this guy does not poll normally, you cannot depend on the numbers to be accurate any more.
What it the definition of insanity again?

Whatever it is that you are doing because you keep making the same faulty comments about polls.

The polls were actually quite on point with the 2016 election (Clinton +3.2 in polling and +2.1 in reality) and has been pretty darn accurate with respect to the elections ever since.  For a numbers guy, you willingness to ignore basic principals of statistics and polling is quite interesting.

 

[Liar Loan]

From the WaPo article:

Significant structural advantages have also favored Democrats since 1992. The party?s candidate has carried 18 states plus the District of Columbia ? totaling 242 electoral votes ? in every election since 1992. Now New Mexico and its five electoral votes, which Bush won in 2004, are considered safely Democratic. If those states remain solid for Clinton, that leaves her only 23 votes short of the 270 necessary for victory. 

Demographic trends since 1992 only reinforce this advantage for Democrats.

Where have I heard that before?

Wisconsin was so safe that Clinton didn't even bother to campaign there, opting to waste resources in unwinnable states like Arizona; Another example of "the most qualified candidate ever" making boneheaded decisions.

That has nothing to do with actual reality and facts.

The opinion piece makes outlandish assumptions that proved to be ill-fated.  I've seen you make similar assumptions.

Don't care about the opinion...care about the fact that there is a shifting demographic.

Nobody disputes there is a shifting demographic.  What we disagree on is the ultimate impact of that.

 

[morekaos]

The point I labor to make is that the media continue to trust polling and opinion that has been proven wrong again and again.  Like the 2016 election, I kept telling people this guy does not poll normally, you cannot depend on the numbers to be accurate any more.
What it the definition of insanity again?

Whatever it is that you are doing because you keep making the same faulty comments about polls.

The polls were actually quite on point with the 2016 election (Clinton +3.2 in polling and +2.1 in reality) and has been pretty darn accurate with respect to the elections ever since.  For a numbers guy, you willingness to ignore basic principals of statistics and polling is quite interesting.

You seem to remember it differently. Don't make me drag up all the media that had polls showing Clinton winning by a landslide in both the popular and electoral college.  In fact they thought she had the map locked.  ALL the polls showed a win, if anything the popular vote was where they were nervous but "polls" showed a clear path to victory in the electoral college...not so much.

HILLARY CLINTON ON TRACK FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE: POLL

After a brutal week for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton maintained a substantial projected advantage in the race to win the Electoral College and claim the U.S. presidency, according to the latest results from the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project released on Saturday.

If the election were held this week, the project estimates that Clinton's odds of securing the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency at more than 95 percent, and by a margin of 118 Electoral College votes. It is the second week in a row that the project has estimated her odds so high.

The results mirror other Electoral College projections, some of which estimate Clinton's chance of winning at around 90 percent.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-track-electoral-college-landslide-510362

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Again..your continual misuse of polling and statistics is quite interesting but you care more about narratives than evidence.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right

 

[Kings]

The point I labor to make is that the media continue to trust polling and opinion that has been proven wrong again and again.  Like the 2016 election, I kept telling people this guy does not poll normally, you cannot depend on the numbers to be accurate any more.
What it the definition of insanity again?

Whatever it is that you are doing because you keep making the same faulty comments about polls.

The polls were actually quite on point with the 2016 election (Clinton +3.2 in polling and +2.1 in reality) and has been pretty darn accurate with respect to the elections ever since.  For a numbers guy, you willingness to ignore basic principals of statistics and polling is quite interesting.

You seem to remember it differently. Don't make me drag up all the media that had polls showing Clinton winning by a landslide in both the popular and electoral college.  In fact they thought she had the map locked.  ALL the polls showed a win, if anything the popular vote was where they were nervous but "polls" showed a clear path to victory in the electoral college...not so much.

HILLARY CLINTON ON TRACK FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE: POLL

After a brutal week for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton maintained a substantial projected advantage in the race to win the Electoral College and claim the U.S. presidency, according to the latest results from the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project released on Saturday.

If the election were held this week, the project estimates that Clinton's odds of securing the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency at more than 95 percent, and by a margin of 118 Electoral College votes. It is the second week in a row that the project has estimated her odds so high.

The results mirror other Electoral College projections, some of which estimate Clinton's chance of winning at around 90 percent.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-track-electoral-college-landslide-510362

My favorite:

Hillary Clinton so far ahead in polls that she 'doesn't even think about' Donald Trump anymore

Hillary Clinton is so far ahead of Donald Trump in the race for the presidency that she no longer even feels the need to pay attention to the Republican nominee.

Buoyed by a double digit lead in some national polls, Mrs Clinton has said she is now looking past Mr Trump entirely, and will no longer counter allegations made by her rival.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/hillary-clinton-so-far-ahead-in-polls-that-doesnt-even-think-abo/

 

[morekaos]

Again..your continual misuse of polling and statistics is quite interesting but you care more about narratives than evidence.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right

Meaningless at best, often simply misleading. Again, if I were looking at 2018 they tell me nothing

Even though plenty of polls accurately measured races for the presidency, Senate and House, it's equally true that many were flat-out wrong. To make matters worse, bad polls are often outliers and hit liEven though plenty of polls accurately measured races for the presidency, Senate and House, it's equally true that many were flat-out wrong. To make matters worse, bad polls are often outliers and hit like bombshells, accurate or not. The media uses them to heighten the drama. Partisans use them to prop up their optimism.

Another problem this year was the slew of statistical "models" that incorrectly predicted the election. These calculations are really just educated guesses based on factors that can be influenced by the personal biases of the modeler. They should never be confused with polling.ke bombshells, accurate or not. The media uses them to heighten the drama. Partisans use them to prop up their optimism.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Again..your continual misuse of polling and statistics is quite interesting but you care more about narratives than evidence.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right

Meaningless at best, often simply misleading. Again, if I were looking at 2018 they tell me nothing

Even though plenty of polls accurately measured races for the presidency, Senate and House, it's equally true that many were flat-out wrong. To make matters worse, bad polls are often outliers and hit liEven though plenty of polls accurately measured races for the presidency, Senate and House, it's equally true that many were flat-out wrong. To make matters worse, bad polls are often outliers and hit like bombshells, accurate or not. The media uses them to heighten the drama. Partisans use them to prop up their optimism.

Another problem this year was the slew of statistical "models" that incorrectly predicted the election. These calculations are really just educated guesses based on factors that can be influenced by the personal biases of the modeler. They should never be confused with polling.ke bombshells, accurate or not. The media uses them to heighten the drama. Partisans use them to prop up their optimism.

None of those things...facts are facts.  Spin is spin.  The fact that people were spinning polls to fit their narrative is not a reflection of the accuracy or substance of polls.  Statistical models predict relative chance of something happening but it does not mean that that thing has to happen.  A 95% outcome means that there is a 5% chance of it not happening. 

But go ahead, just ignore polls. 

 

[Liar Loan]

According to the polls, Roy Moore should be Senator of Alabama right now.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

According to the polls, Roy Moore should be Senator of Alabama right now.

Seriously.  Details and methodologies matter. 
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-hell-is-happening-with-these-alabama-polls/

 

[morekaos]

According to the polls, Republicans will lose the house and the senate in 2018.

 

[Liar Loan]

According to the polls, Roy Moore should be Senator of Alabama right now.

Seriously.  Details and methodologies matter. 
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-hell-is-happening-with-these-alabama-polls/

Then it sounds like you and morekaos are in agreement.  The presidential polls failed because of methodology.

fivethirtyeight came the closest to accurately predicting the election based on polls, and even they said Hilda had a 67% chance of winning.  I think Huffpost gave her a 99% chance... LOL

 

[morekaos]

On hallowed ground five thirty eight blows it all the time.

7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump

It?s been a rough election cycle for forecasting guru Nate Silver and his website FiveThirtyEight. Silver became a household name after he almost perfectly predicted the results of the 2008 and 2012 general elections, and his esteem was such that to some people he had removed almost all the suspense from elections.

Then Trump happened.

Nate Silver and his colleagues at FiveThirtyEight were extremely dismissive of Trump?s chances even after he rose to the top of the polls in the summer of 2015, and they repeatedly said as much. But ultimately, Trump proved to be a ?black swan? event that was devastating to the retrospective models Silver relies upon to make predictions. Silver himself has been forthright about his failure, issuing a mea culpa early Wednesday morning.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

On hallowed ground five thirty eight blows it all the time.

7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump

It?s been a rough election cycle for forecasting guru Nate Silver and his website FiveThirtyEight. Silver became a household name after he almost perfectly predicted the results of the 2008 and 2012 general elections, and his esteem was such that to some people he had removed almost all the suspense from elections.

Then Trump happened.

Nate Silver and his colleagues at FiveThirtyEight were extremely dismissive of Trump?s chances even after he rose to the top of the polls in the summer of 2015, and they repeatedly said as much. But ultimately, Trump proved to be a ?black swan? event that was devastating to the retrospective models Silver relies upon to make predictions. Silver himself has been forthright about his failure, issuing a mea culpa early Wednesday morning.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/

Only because you insist on pushing the narrative that polls and predictive models conclusively establish outcome.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

According to the polls, Roy Moore should be Senator of Alabama right now.

Seriously.  Details and methodologies matter. 
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-hell-is-happening-with-these-alabama-polls/

Then it sounds like you and morekaos are in agreement.  The presidential polls failed because of methodology.

fivethirtyeight came the closest to accurately predicting the election based on polls, and even they said Hilda had a 67% chance of winning.  I think Huffpost gave her a 99% chance... LOL

Nope...Morekos intentionally depict polls and predictive models as some sort of absolute truth when in reality they are simply a mathematical model.  Polls and predictive models are used all the time..in insurance, market analysis, weather prediction, business forecasts, etc.  They are not some sort of random number generator...nor are they the Grey's Sports Almanac. 

Reality and life are never 100% predictable but mathematical analysis and modeling are good things to use for a number of reasons.   

 

[morekaos]

It?s not me. I think they all suck. It?s the media, and the gullible public that treat these polls and pollsters like gods. I enjoy watching them get it consistently wrong. I make a living going against the crowd.

 

[Kings]

Political polls are not used to predict an outcome, they are used to sway public opinion.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Political polls are not used to predict an outcome, they are used to sway public opinion.

No...political polls are mathematical models based upon particular methodology.  Spin is used to sway public opinion. 

For example, Trump repeatedly touts the polls that has him at 40+% approval rating even though those same polls have him with 50+% disapproval and as a collective, polls have Trump's approval rating at mid 30s. 

Again, as a whole, the polls for the 2016 election were quite good.

Again...polls and predictive models (political or otherwise) are not some sort of alchemy.  Weather models can also be wrong they're pretty accurate so if you think that you don't need to carry an umbrella because the weather forecast was wrong one time...that's a you issue.

 

[morekaos]

Your own article admits that polls were at best 50/50. Even factoring out spin, half right half wrong means nothing, adds no useful information.

Even though plenty of polls accurately measured races for the presidency, Senate and House, it's equally true that many were flat-out wrong

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Your own article admits that polls were at best 50/50. Even factoring out spin, half right half wrong means nothing adds no useful information.

Even though plenty of polls accurately measured races for the presidency, Senate and House, it's equally true that many were flat-out wrong

polls are not 50/50...that's not how they works.  Polls work on margin of error and % of likelihood.    Polls are snapshots in time and depending on methodology can vary.  That is why combination/average of polls work best and most accurate.  No different that photographs of a particular event from different angles...one photograph may capture the event competently but combining photographs from multiple angles of the same event is far better.

Seriously...basic statistics. 

 

[morekaos]

Pew (a polling company) admits they blew it.

Why 2016 election polls missed their mark

The results of Tuesday?s presidential election came as a surprise to nearly everyone who had been following the national and state election polling, which consistently projected Hillary Clinton as defeating Donald Trump. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton?s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%, and pegged her as the heavy favorite to win a number of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that in the end were taken by Trump.

How could the polls have been so wrong about the state of the election?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/