What went wrong in this year's presidential polls?

[Jingthing]

Actually if you followed Nate Silver, he was very clear in the last week that trump had a significant chance of winning. So not all the major polling sources were that far off. People were actually angry at Silver about that but he's a truth teller. 

[thaibeachlovers]

37 minutes ago, Basil B said:

 

Human nature people know they should not press the button but they still do so.

From father Ted

[JLCrab]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

it's called HOPE and ( hope for ) CHANGE. If people are desperate enough, they will always go to the one that promises better. Under Obama, people have become very desperate indeed.

Obama didn't deliver, but that does not mean Trump won't. Ask me again in 4 years if it got better or not, just don't tell me you know what is going to happen. NO ONE on here is psychic.

I didn't tell you anything -- those were Trump's words in his victory speech. And I agree that people voted for Trump because they are desperate. Whether they will still be desperate in 4 years, who knows?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Usernames said:

If you turn on CNN, you will see a constant parade of Trump haters being interviewed: Michael Moore, Dan Rather, Maria Cardova, the naacp, BLMers, illegal aliens, David Axelrod, and all of Trump's Republican opponents. The polls were nothing more than a continuation of what is a Big Media campaign to defeat Trump in the election and, now, try to undermine him before he is even inaugurated.  The polls were not intended to be "correct," they were intended to discourage and defeat Trump supporters before and after they voted. Big Media and their polls are more sinister than Pravda under the USSR.  At least under Communist regimes, those citizens knew they were being lied to about everything.  In America, the Big Media poses as the fount of unbiased wisdom.  The need to be destroyed. All of them.

 

And yet another OTT post.

They need to be destroyed. Yeah. And the alternative would be...?

Kinda obvious some aren't about fixing things, more thrilled with tearing it all down.

Not sure everyone voting for Trump signed on for nihilism.

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And yet another OTT post.

They need to be destroyed. Yeah. And the alternative would be...?

Kinda obvious some aren't about fixing things, more thrilled with tearing it all down.

Not sure everyone voting for Trump signed on for nihilism.

 

Tearing it all down. 

 

Isn't that what the pro-hillary rioters are shouting right now on the streets of most major cities?

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

The polls deliberately over sampled Democrats and groups likely to vote Democrat. They were paid to do so in some cases by the DNC. The pollsters are as completely discredited as the MSM, unfit for purpose.

P.s I was so confident the polls were wrong that I bet my friends beforehand that if Trump was within 4% of Clinton on Election Day he would win.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

And you can support the "deliberately" and "paid to do so" parts without resorting to the usual loon blogs?

 

There are some inherent biases cropping up in many organizations running polls. One of the main ones being over polling of easy to poll populations. That usually translates to oversampling of urban areas. Happens all over, not just in the US. This gets even worse with any face to face polling, or anything requiring coverage of large areas. Guess its obvious how this pertains to the current topic.

 

Another bias does have to do with media coverage. While media might play a lesser role in shaping voting decision than some assume, it does work on social perceptions. So media going on about a candidate being such and such, and those voting for him "deplorable", it might not change the actual voting decision, but may be expressed as a reluctance to admit to the choice. On the flip side, if media and polls become synonymous, and one's candidate of choice is anti-media (or vice versa, that's not the point), cooperating with polls will take a hit.

 

As pointed out, the polls were not off by that much, except with regard to certain states (mostly the Rust Belt).

 

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Tearing it all down. 

 

Isn't that what the pro-hillary rioters are shouting right now on the streets of most major cities?

 

And I'm not thrilled with them as well....

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed. 

[Dtrump]

53 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Actually if you followed Nate Silver, he was very clear in the last week that trump had a significant chance of winning. So not all the major polling sources were that far off. People were actually angry at Silver about that but he's a truth teller. 

Headed into Election Day, polling evangelist Nate Silver’s 538 website put Clinton’s odds at winning the White House at about 72 percent.

 

Do you ever get anything right?

[Usernames]

4 minutes ago, Dtrump said:

Headed into Election Day, polling evangelist Nate Silver’s 538 website put Clinton’s odds at winning the White House at about 72 percent.

 

Do you ever get anything right?

 

People trying to defend the polls, in effect, are desperately trying to defend the establishment. The polls are part of the establishment and the establishment's means of controlling the voting public.

[zydeco]

53 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And yet another OTT post.

They need to be destroyed. Yeah. And the alternative would be...?

Kinda obvious some aren't about fixing things, more thrilled with tearing it all down.

Not sure everyone voting for Trump signed on for nihilism.

 

Oh, what a bunch of utter nonsense. The media has proved itself completely biased and actually colluding with the Clinton campaign and the DNC.  And you think it's "nihilism" to want to tear down such a corrupt relationship.  If you believe that the same old corruption is going to stand, you haven't got a clue about what is happening in the US.

[mrfill]

Why are Trump supporters so paranoid?

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, zydeco said:

 

Oh, what a bunch of utter nonsense. The media has proved itself completely biased and actually colluding with the Clinton campaign and the DNC.  And you think it's "nihilism" to want to tear down such a corrupt relationship.  If you believe that the same old corruption is going to stand, you haven't got a clue about what is happening in the US.

 

Overreaching and over the top. Same as the post I was replying to.

And nothing to offer other than destruction. So, yes - nihilism.

[zydeco]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Overreaching and over the top. Same as the post I was replying to.

And nothing to offer other than destruction. So, yes - nihilism.

 

Don't like facts, do you?  Such as Murdoch ordering Fox News to "destroy" Trump. Wikileaks showing CNN delivered the debate questions to Clinton in advance. Writers at the Washington Post and Atlantic Monthly submitting their articles in advance to Clinton for approval. If you don't understand that such a rotten system needs to be destroyed, you're beyond help.

[JetsetBkk]

27 minutes ago, zydeco said:

The media has proved itself completely biased and actually colluding with the Clinton campaign and the DNC. 

 

Yes, completely un-biased: 

 

Summary of newspaper and magazine endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election

Candidate	Daily	Weekly	Magazines	College	International	Total
Hillary Clinton	243	148	15	77	17	500
No endorsement	64	13	0	5	0	82
Donald Trump	20	6	0	0	0	26

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, zydeco said:

 

Don't like facts, do you?  Such as Murdoch ordering Fox News to "destroy" Trump. Wikileaks showing CNN delivered the debate questions to Clinton in advance. Writers at the Washington Post and Atlantic Monthly submitting their articles in advance to Clinton for approval. If you don't understand that such a rotten system needs to be destroyed, you're beyond help.

 

And again, considering people do need access to information - what is the alternative suggested? And further, how can "the media" (a kinda broad term) be "destroyed", and by whom?

 

 

[Dtrump]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And again, considering people do need access to information - what is the alternative suggested? And further, how can "the media" (a kinda broad term) be "destroyed", and by whom?

 

 

The Internet is doing a good job so far.  Even Obama with his hate for whistle blowers was not able to stop Wikileaks.  You can run but you can't hide.

[boomerangutang]

conservatives are more likely to make the effort to vote, than liberals.  Many liberals are lazy and/or will slough off an election; "what does one vote matter? Corporations are going to choose and get who they want regardless." etc

 

I've voted in the US for decades.  I have always noticed the luxury cars showing up at polling places, while my liberal beat-up-bicycle riding buddies were getting up at 11 am and smoking a joint, too lazy to be bothered.

 

If you think it's bad for liberal candidates now, wait until the mid-term elections.  An even larger proportion of conservatives (compared to liberals) vote in years between presidential elections.   Last two times, in 2010 and 2014, a lot of Tea Partiers got elected.  Expect similar in 2018.  More Sarah Palin / Carson / Cruz ...anti-science types.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Dtrump said:

The Internet is doing a good job so far.  Even Obama with his hate for whistle blowers was not able to stop Wikileaks.  You can run but you can't hide.

 

There is no such thing as "the Internet". Same media you guys want to tear down is also on "the Internet". And information presented on "the Internet" is not less subject to manipulation. Further, who decides what goes and what stays?

 

Wikileaks is actually a good example - there's no balance with regard to the material being released.

 

[Dtrump]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There is no such thing as "the Internet". Same media you guys want to tear down is also on "the Internet". And information presented on "the Internet" is not less subject to manipulation. Further, who decides what goes and what stays?

 

Wikileaks is actually a good example - there's no balance with regard to the material being released.

 

You decide what is true or not.  Blogs and whistle blowers all publish.  It is not the force fed stuff by the media moguls.  For example, I know Hillary Clinton and most of the people I know who know Hillary feel the same way about her.  It is all on the Internet if you want to look.  It's not on CNN.

 

The consumer is the balance.   

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Dtrump said:

You decide what is true or not.  Blogs and whistle blowers all publish.  It is not the force fed stuff by the media moguls.  For example, I know Hillary Clinton and most of the people I know who know Hillary feel the same way about her.  It is all on the Internet if you want to look.  It's not on CNN.

 

The consumer is the balance.   

 

Consumers get this choice today as well. But if your main complaint is of bias and vested interests, how does fragmenting the information sources make for a more accurately informed public?

 

[Dtrump]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Consumers get this choice today as well. But if your main complaint is of bias and vested interests, how does fragmenting the information sources make for a more accurately informed public?

 

Less choices the easier to buy the media.  If there are only 3 news sources rich people are going to own them.  If there are a 1000 anyone can own them.   If I was Trump I'd pick a group of media sources that had been pro Trump and tell CNN and Fox to FO

Edited November 11, 2016 by Dtrump

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Dtrump said:

Less choices the easier to buy the media.  If there are only 3 news sources rich people are going to own them.  If there are a 1000 anyone can own them. 

 

There are literally hundreds if not thousands news sources, websites and channels. Most of them on "the Internet" already. Consumers unhappy with the "the media" can opt to follow other sources. And as for ownership, no real difference - controlling one big source or a host of smaller sources wouldn't be an issue (but could prove harder to monitor for bias).

[bumpkin]

9 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Can we stop with the 'labels' e.g. " the left , the tree hugers  the luvvies"?

 

IMO many 'ordinary' people whose concerns have been ignored by politicians and the wealthy - have finally given vent to their anger which, resulted in the Brexit vote and the Trump vote.

Note -  Clinton polled more than 50% of votes only in the lowest income group, <50000$ annual income.

In all higher annual income groups, >50000$,   Trump polled more votes.

[Dtrump]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

There are literally hundreds if not thousands news sources, websites and channels. Most of them on "the Internet" already. Consumers unhappy with the "the media" can opt to follow other sources. And as for ownership, no real difference - controlling one big source or a host of smaller sources wouldn't be an issue (but could prove harder to monitor for bias).

That's my point.  Trump does not need the big ones anymore.  Dump them they are against him 100%.

[oldgit]

It's a complete mystery to me how Clinton lost. Surely the hard working citizens in the 'Rust belt' states must have been impressed by the presence of A listers like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Beyonce et al prancing up and down the stage in their very expensive attire and tripping over their jewellery?

[Grubster]

There were millions of guys that didn't want to say they were voting for Trump with that fat cow standing next to them.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Dtrump said:

That's my point.  Trump does not need the big ones anymore.  Dump them they are against him 100%.

 

This is not about what Trump needs, but about what the people need. Trump is not the people, nor did all the people vote for Trump. Further, not even all the people who did vote for Trump would go for such extreme lengths as proposed.

 

IMO, ardent Trump supporters in favor of the above will be disappointed with Trump's actions on that front.

[otherstuff1957]

Reading between the lines in this morning's news, the biggest difference between Obamacare and Trumpcare may be the name.

 

 

[sekmet]

They polled land lines