re: .

quote:

---

elections don't have efficient stats with high correlations.

---

They are pretty high, and usually with 2 points. This year, with exceptionally high misses in the 17 swing states, they were still within 3.9 points on average. They're far from perfect, and there were far fewer polls this year, but they still correlated quite well.

quote:

---

his approach to this is just garbage

---

How is it garbage? The polls are a proxy for the general election. Their greatest flaw is that they can't measure turnout; however, there isn't really a better metric to gauge the views of the population than polling.

quote:

---

Their greatest flaw is that they can't measure turnout

---

i agree, which makes them useless. Add to that the turnout they were predicting and now I see deliberate manipulation. Some of them don't even make it available. we weighted it according to current census, etc. and you're just going to have to take our word on that.

quote:

---

gauge the views of the population than polling.

---

the second part of the equation is that news agencies just say...here's the poll. there is never any scrutiny for pollsters and that's total fricking bullshite, but that's the fault of the news media.

you're strengthening my point though. polls are total bullshite, and they're all over the place nailing one and not the other. differing from each other in numerous ways...but differing greatly

that was the first indication that all of this polling was crooked or at the very least inaccurate.

then they said Utah was a swing...

then i started looking at their bullshite

and it's only worth looking at the states that the election hinged on. the point is polls can very easily have the effect of suppressing voters when they show a candidate romping over another

quote:

---

They are pretty high, and usually with 2 points

---

and based on outdated information...again, the one time event is the big problem here...it doesn't lend itself to statistical forecasting and this is the 3rd election in a row they've been off, and each one is worse than the last...but this one was unique. everything was thrown at trump...including phony arse polling.

quote:

---

an ACCURATE state of the race...just yes or no, do you think nate provided that?

---

It was a pretty accurate picture. This is why he discussed the very outcome
The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

He argued that the state races were far more uncertain
Election Update: National Polls Show Clinton’s Lead Stabilizing — State Polls, Not So Much

He argued that despite her polling, her position was much worse than Obama in 2012
Election Update: Why Clinton’s Position Is Worse Than Obama’s

He was forced to argue against the other modelers about Trump's chances
Election Update: Yes, Donald Trump Has A Path To Victory

He highlighted the uncertainty due to undecided voters
Election Update: Where Are The Undecided Voters?

He even had to defend Trump's odds when before the Comey bombshell where others were giving Trump less than 1% when Clinton had her largest polling margins
Election Update: Why Our Model Is More Bullish Than Others On Trump.

In addition, he even questioned Hillary's campaigning in Arizona while giving Trump credit for campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Not only is it justifiable for Trump to be campaigning in WI or MI—it's absolutely the correct strategy. Whereas Clinton in AZ is dubious.

He even went off on the hack liberals at Huffington Post who were criticizing him for giving Trump a good chance of winning.
Nate Silver rages at Huffington Post editor in 14-part tweetstorm

quote:

---

There's a reasonable range of disagreement. But a model showing Clinton at 98% or 99% is not defensible based on the empirical evidence.

---

The model is the model. It uses the data to make a prediction; however, I think he should be commended for actually analyzing the state of the races, including the campaigning choices and the uncertainty. While everybody else was predicting a landslide, he was arguing against that.

I get that, i'm clarifying why i'm pointing out nate silver

about a month ago he attacked kellyanne Conway's credibility as a pollster...so this cocksucker is fair game when his results suck this bad and varying reports on the accuracy of Conway's internals. some reported theirs sucked too, but the ones that say they were dead on are more believable when you look at where they spent their time with such little time left

they were crucified on cnn and fox for going to Minnesota and they only lost by 40,000

quote:

---

i agree, which makes them useless

---

It doesn't make them useless; it just makes them flawed. Just like BMI is a flawed measure of obesity, but it's not useless.

quote:

---

Add to that the turnout they were predicting and now I see deliberate manipulation.

---

Why would the pollsters deliberately manipulate it? Some may go out of business because of their poor polling. And did they also deliberately manipulate it AGAINST Obama, who people (especially the liberal media) like WAY more than Hillary?

quote:

---

here's the poll. there is never any scrutiny for pollsters and that's total fricking bullshite, but that's the fault of the news media.

---

Agreed. But at least 538 tries to have an objective evaluation of the data. Hence, their articles discussing the very real possibility of the outcome that occurred as well as highlighting Trump's campaign approach in Michigan and Wisconsin while criticizing Hillary's campaigning in Arizona.

quote:

---

about a month ago he attacked kellyanne Conway's credibility as a pollster

---

Link? I couldn't find that, unless you're referring to people calling her out for citing an online Drudge poll post-debate. It's expected from a campaign, but she is better than that.

quote:

---

varying reports on the accuracy of Conway's internals

---

I don't know how accurate this tweet is, but Conway allegedly said their internals showed Trump down in Pennsylvania. Kellyanne Conway says on CNN campaign internals show Trump down 4 in PA.

quote:

---

but the ones that say they were dead on are more believable when you look at where they spent their time with such little time left

---

Silver even commended their campaign approach in the rust belt. They had to flip states (an offensive strategy), and they chose the one's with their best chances. She did a great job, but it would have been a great job even if they lost.

quote:

---

they were crucified on cnn and fox for going to Minnesota and they only lost by 40,000

---

Because those are hack pundits. Again Silver defended their approach.

quote:

---

objective evaluation of the data

---

you cannot separate comments, tweets, anything from them from what they publish. I would not agree with this, but it is an opinion.

quote:

---

Why would the pollsters deliberately manipulate it?

---

why did cnn ask Clinton campaign for questions to ask republicans? why did they forward her the debate questions ahead of time? agenda and/or money? I don't know, but I suspect a few possible answers

quote:

---

did they also deliberately manipulate it AGAINST Obama

---

I suspect not, the state polling was worse here in the states that mattered, the ones that get air time. like I said, this was different and it was bad enough to where my suspicion is super fricking reasonable.

if the desire is an accurate state of the race and your state of the race is flawed...it is useless. But of course, i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions.

quote:

---

Some may go out of business because of their poor polling

---

you can't separate the names from who does the polling. is NBC going out of business? WSJ? Marist college?

what about Quinnipiac university?

quote:

---

Just like BMI is a flawed measure of obesity, but it's not useless

---

we really agree here. BMI is fricking stupid, but I disagree. It's useless when there is an alternative...the mirror.