Originally posted by @freakykbhYeah, I'm sure it was all over conspiracy websites how the "mainstream" media got it all wrong, and certain gullible rubes bought that line. The polls, however, indicated a close race with Clinton at most a slight favourite, and the result was completely unsurprising in the view of pre-election polls. This fact is hardly "revisionist" - facts rarely tend to be.
Good God, that's a hell of a disconnect you've got going there.
Not only was the media calling it a landslide for months leading up to the election, not only was the media shocked beyond belief that the results were coming in complete contradiction to their prognostications, there was considerable hand-wringing afterwards specifically about how wrong the ...[text shortened]... he events as they unfolded?
Get the hell out of here with your revisionist peddling, jackass.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYeah: it was all OVER the conspiracy websites.
Yeah, I'm sure it was all over conspiracy websites how the "mainstream" media got it all wrong, and certain gullible rubes bought that line. The polls, however, indicated a close race with Clinton at most a slight favourite, and the result was completely unsurprising in the view of pre-election polls. This fact is hardly "revisionist" - facts rarely tend to be.
Especially this one:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/podcasts/election-analysis-run-up.html
That was the very first one which popped up when I put "how wrong did the media get the election" in the space provided by Google in its search bar.
Jackass.
Originally posted by @freakykbhYou are getting desperate, going downhill with the first use of ad hominems here. BIG FAIL. If you have to resort to insults you have just lost the debate.
Yeah: it was all OVER the conspiracy websites.
Especially this one:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/podcasts/election-analysis-run-up.html
That was the very first one which popped up when I put "how wrong did the media get the election" in the space provided by Google in its search bar.
Jackass.
Originally posted by @freakykbhYawn. So some guy who doesn't understand polling wrote an opinion article in the NY Times. So what?
Yeah: it was all OVER the conspiracy websites.
Especially this one:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/podcasts/election-analysis-run-up.html
That was the very first one which popped up when I put "how wrong did the media get the election" in the space provided by Google in its search bar.
Jackass.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI agreed with the traitor Freaky? I never said they were totally wrong. I don't claim to be an expert on statistics, I leave that to my son in law who actually has a Phd in statistical physics but maybe I should have consulted him before opening my mouth and inserting some of my size 13's.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI get that you don't want to hear what is being said.
Yawn. So some guy who doesn't understand polling wrote an opinion article in the NY Times. So what?
The media's polls--- nearly ALL of them--- had it comically and epically wrong.
Originally posted by @sonhouseDebate?
You are getting desperate, going downhill with the first use of ad hominems here. BIG FAIL. If you have to resort to insults you have just lost the debate.
How could you even consider it a debate?
The media had Trump losing in a landslide and KN wants to revise that by saying it was known all along, that it wasn't a surprise.
Surprise!
The media was shocked.
Why?
Because their polls had Hillary crushing him.
"Debate" finished.
Originally posted by @sonhouse...maybe I should have consulted him before opening my mouth and inserting some of my size 13's.
I agreed with the traitor Freaky? I never said they were totally wrong. I don't claim to be an expert on statistics, I leave that to my son in law who actually has a Phd in statistical physics but maybe I should have consulted him before opening my mouth and inserting some of my size 13's.
Some of them?
How many feet do you have?
Originally posted by @freakykbhThe media used those very polls that I pointed you to - RCP computes its average by considering the most-established polling organizations. Sure, some commentators and pundits who don't understand polls or didn't want to believe that there are more than 60 million complete morons in America were surprised, or acted like they were. So what? Again, the polls didn't "get it wrong" - they were quite accurate and predicted a close race with Trump at most a slight underdog. What part of the polls I linked you to didn't you understand?
I get that you don't want to hear what is being said.
The media's polls--- nearly ALL of them--- had it comically and epically wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAh.
The media used those very polls that I pointed you to - RCP computes its average by considering the most-established polling organizations. Sure, some commentators and pundits who don't understand polls or didn't want to believe that there are more than 60 million complete morons in America were surprised, or acted like they were. So what? Again, the p ...[text shortened]... h Trump at most a slight underdog. What part of the polls I linked you to didn't you understand?
So when I said:
Better question: how did they get it so wrong for so long that all of the reports had Hillary winning by a landslide?
... despite the fact that they were using those EXACT SAME polls, they were all calling it a landslide against Trump.
They weren't broadcasting their perplexity, they were announcing a landslide.
The dumbfounded what-the-hell-just-happened didn't come until AFTER the results.
More to the point:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/
A little excerpt from the above, since your link was not anywhere close to supporting your claim, but rather, was simply an article about sampling statistics.
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?
There is a great deal of speculation but no clear answers as to the cause of the disconnect, but there is one point of agreement: Across the board, polls underestimated Trump’s level of support. With few exceptions, the final round of public polling showed Clinton with a lead of 1 to 7 percentage points in the national popular vote. State-level polling was more variable, but there were few instances where polls overstated Trump’s support.
The fact that so many forecasts were off-target was particularly notable given the increasingly wide variety of methodologies being tested and reported via the mainstream media and other channels. The traditional telephone polls of recent decades are now joined by increasing numbers of high profile, online probability and nonprobability sample surveys, as well as prediction markets, all of which showed similar errors.
Oops.
Again, look at the pre-election polls, predicting a 3.3% lead in the popular vote for Clinton.
Now look at the final result, a 2.1% lead in the popular vote for Clinton. A difference of only 1.2 percentage points.
We knew that the Electoral College slightly favoured Republicans so a small popular vote victory would likely not be sufficient for a win. The polls were accurate, no matter how much you screech, rant and rave otherwise.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraScreech, rant and rave?
Again, look at the pre-election polls, predicting a 3.3% lead in the popular vote for Clinton.
Now look at the final result, a 2.1% lead in the popular vote for Clinton. A difference of only 1.2 percentage points.
We knew that the Electoral College slightly favoured Republicans so a small popular vote victory would likely not be sufficient for a win. The polls were accurate, no matter how much you screech, rant and rave otherwise.
You insufferable tool.
I'm quoting the news of the day, which you are desperately trying to deflect from.
Google it and listen to its screeching, ranting and raving--- page after page after page, all saying the same thing: the polls had it wrong.
The quote provided above FROM ONE OF THE LEADERS IN POLLING unequivocally states they got it wrong... that they all got it wrong.
Despite the professional pollsters' collective failure, the media had their own polling... which was equally wrong.
Do you have a point, since your original one has been destroyed by historical fact?