It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Way to go, keep your peers proud, but by no means should you ever get near a respectful or intelligent discussion.
Impossible when addressing you.
originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Xcathdra
There is no such thing as a national popular vote.
Right. Ha. You should write a book and educate those who think differently. Like, all the rest of us. About Gore too.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: shooterbrody
Does Trump winning somehow mean that it wasn't 93%?
At least three key types of error have emerged as likely contributors to the pro-Clinton bias in pre-election surveys. Undecided voters broke for Mr. Trump in the final days of the race, or in the voting booth. Turnout among Mr. Trump’s supporters was somewhat higher than expected. And state polls, in particular, understated Mr. Trump’s support in the decisive Rust Belt region, in part because those surveys did not adjust for the educational composition of the electorate — a key to the 2016 race.
The biggest reason? They’re comparing pre-election polls to exit polls. And it doesn’t work.
Donald J. Trump’s victory ran counter to almost every major forecast — undercutting the belief that analyzing reams of data can accurately predict events. Voters demonstrated how much predictive analytics, and election forecasting in particular, remains a young science: Some people may have been misled into thinking Hillary Clinton’s win was assured because some of the forecasts lacked context explaining potentially wide margins of error.
If Bernie Sanders were to defeat Hillary Clinton in Michigan’s Democratic primary, it would be “among the greatest polling errors in primary history,” our editor in chief, Nate Silver, wrote Tuesday evening when results started to come in. Sanders pulled it off, and now we’re left wondering how it happened. How did Sanders win by 1.5 percentage points when our polling average showed Clinton ahead by 21 points and our forecasts showed that Sanders had less than a 1 percent chance of winning?
originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
Looks like you don't know how polls work. Or statistics.
Yeah, keep saying they were 'wrong' though.
originally posted by: Dudemo5
We have a lot of people in this thread who have no idea what a poll is.
A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to manipulate or alter prospective voters' views/beliefs under the guise of conducting an opinion poll.
originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: links234
Again, they're not blaming the predictions (not even in this thread) even though to their shock and surprise their sure thing was defeated. If you want to see people upset the predictions were wrong you only had to watch the faces at Clinton campaign HQ. It's funny how now the polls were correct all along when no one (not even the Repubs) had a contingency planned if Hillary lost.