It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Polls One Year Ago In The "FAKE NEWS"

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




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.

It is just too bad that people do actually show up for local elections. Who better to leave it to than the locals to set up their own congressional districts. No participation ribbons for you there.




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


Impossible when addressing you.

Lol. Nice cop out after being called out for making up something I never said. "Herp derp! I said something stupid and unprovoked but its krazysh0t's fault that I said it!"
edit on 24-10-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Your quote, your words sorry they hit so close to home.

Meanwhile 1 year ago:

www.thegatewaypundit.com...


The Times reported that Hillary had a 93% chance of winning the Presidential election.


93%
Well done NYT
Well done



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Does Trump winning somehow mean that it wasn't 93%?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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.





Why do this when Dinesh D'Souza has already done such a majestic job at writing exactly such a book?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: shooterbrody

Does Trump winning somehow mean that it wasn't 93%?

I think the times says so
www.nytimes.com...



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.

www.nytimes.com...



The biggest reason? They’re comparing pre-election polls to exit polls. And it doesn’t work.


www.nytimes.com...



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.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Looks like you don't know how polls work. Or statistics.

Yeah, keep saying they were 'wrong' though.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

How do you know Trumps victory ran counter to the forecast? 93% chance of Hillary winning still forecasts Trump with a chance, which is what happened. Remember, that was chance of outcome, not percent of vote.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This is the weirdest thread ever - the people who were royally screwed by the obviously flawed (faked?) "polls" and "forecasts" are the very ones defending their integrity and methodology. I would think most people who got sold that steaming pile would be pissed - I know I would be.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61

The predictions were poor. That's not the fault of the polls though, is it? People depended on someone else's interpretation of what the numbers said. That person was wrong, not the numbers.

I stick with 538, they predicted the closest numbers in regards to the popular vote. Trump outperformed in a few states and swung the election. In Michigan he won by 0.23%, that's well within an error margin for any pre-election poll. Pennsylvania, 0.72%. Wisconsin, 0.77%. That's 46 electoral votes from just those three states.

If Pennsylvania and Michigan had gone the other way, we'd be arguing over President Clinton right now. That's ~56,000 votes. I'm not going to condemn the polls for not predicting ~56k votes out of 136.6 million.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

I'd say maybe a tiny fraction of the public was paying as close attention as you. The rest depended on the MSM for their "predictions" and got hosed. So the trusted MSM was either grossly negligent in their research and forecasting or deliberately misleading. Yet they don't blame the MSM and still swallow their bs because Russia.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61

I've genuinely never met someone upset because the predictions were wrong. I've only ever encountered people saying I should be upset that the predictions were wrong.

Fact is, it's over and it's time to move forward.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61

Oh, yeah. I've seen a lot of people upset about the outcome but I've never seen anyone just discount the whole polling establishment because Trump won. There's no reason to.

The biggest polling mistake of 2016 was the Democratic primary election polling for Michigan.

Why The Polls Missed Bernie Sanders’s Michigan Upset


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?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

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.


Really, I guess just like the Huffington post didn't understand how they worked either.
Just to give an idea just how bad it was the Young Turks who were livid on election night were really mad at there on sides propaganda then even called out the Huff on this.

Again because you seemed to have missed it, I know it's painful to look at but........





It specifically says"Posterpolls" even if it is bogus in it's representation this just reiterates the fake news.

How this is relevant today, fake news saying Trump is hated in the polls, I can guarantee you people that are going back to work in the swing states because they have a new job recently made available to them because ICE swept through there area aren't complaining about his tactics.

Until liberals fully understand and accept the reality on the ground with the middle class they are going to keep losing, even Micheal Moore gets it, though he hates the reality of the whole thing, it perturbs him to no end.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
We have a lot of people in this thread who have no idea what a poll is.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5
We have a lot of people in this thread who have no idea what a poll is.




Which one:

1)Internet Polls

2)Push Polls

3)Phone Polls

4)Straw Polls




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.


The skillful use of push polls backfired in the most spectacular way this past election cycle, let it be a warning to all going forward.

edit on 24-10-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Case in point ^



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

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.


Where was Hillary ever said to be a sure thing? The closest I've seen is the Huffington Post 98-2 forecast, which is not a poll, but rather data extracted from polls. And even with that, we don't have enough results to determine if it was correct or not. Was it unlikely Trump would win? Yes. that doesn't mean impossible though. Nothing said Hillary was a sure thing.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So the model was wrong, not the polls. That has to do with who interpreted the polls, not the polls themselves.

The only way you can say that the polls themselves were wrong (you'd have to point to which polls because they all had different results) but prove to me how they're wrong.

You can look at all the 2016 polls here. The largest gap the day before the election was the WMUR/UNH poll with Clinton at +11. Both the Trafalgar Group (R)* and Emerson polls on the same day gave Trump +7. Which one was wrong and by how much were they wrong? Did that fall within their error margin?

Even if you say the HuffPo model is wrong then you're still miscounting statistics in general, there was still a chance that Trump would win. He won.

I mean, unless you can point me to any model from 2016 that gave Trump a 100% chance of winning then you're coming off the premise that all polls and models are wrong because Trump won.

Weatherman gives a 60% chance of rain, it doesn't rain, I guess the weatherman can't be trusted.



new topics




 
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join