re: .

quote:

---

Except this can work both ways

---

when the biggest obstacle to getting Hillary elected is the enthusiasm of trump supporters...it's pretty smart fricking idea. Make his supporters feel like it won't matter

WikiLeaks...did you read them? My suspicions are not easily dismissed with the information and results in hand

of course, and I believed this was a likely result, that there is a threshold of enthusiasm, where you're just digging your own grave. we'll never know what the effect of the polling was and how it changed things, but it's hard to imagine it didn't have an impact one way or the other. and we'll never know if that impact made the difference and in which direction.

and was there a national poll in 2012 that had Obama down 13 points?

I know you're not dismissing me, but I am curious aren't you at least suspicious of the polling if you look at it from beginning to end.

at no point do I think Donald trump was down 12 nationally...except for maybe a short period following pussygate, but even that is a stretch. (ETA: I didn't mean to make a pussy joke there )

ETA: I feel good about the results. polling will not be trusted. for those already suspicious, it confirms your suspicions. for Clinton supporters who thought this was in the bag...judging by their reaction, this will stick with them. it also tells me that most people see through the sensationalized distractions of news media and print media but that is another topic.

quote:

---

and was there a national poll in 2012 that had Obama down 13 points?

---

No. But there was a Romney +4 at one point which was 7.9 points off. 2012 was a very stable polling year too.

In addition, using NYT's final popular vote projection of Clinton +1.2, a +9 poll for Hillary would be a comparable polling miss.

quote:

---

but I am curious aren't you at least suspicious of the polling if you look at it from beginning to end.

---

Given the nature of the election and the frequent bombshells and the unfavorability of both candidates; I not suspicious. (+13 is extreme though). I mean the LA Times poll (which I actually like) has been given some undue praise for their prediction. Yet, they are going to be one of the most inaccurate polls. They had Trump +6 nationally on 11/05; a 7 point difference and a > 4 point difference on their final day of polling).

quote:

---

at no point do I think Donald trump was down 12 nationally

---

And he surely wasn't +6 three days before the election; at least the +12 poll ( although widely inaccurate) was pre-Comey and > 2 weeks before the election.

quote:

---

Because they had some hack pundits

---

she works for cnn, but let's accept that.

someone at cnn gave her those questions.

and that's to say nothing of jake tapper and wolf blitzer coordinating (in tapper's case directly) with the dnc and Clinton campaign directly

quote:

---

but there was a clear reason why they were wrong

---

yeah turnout but the turnout was ludicrous on its face. which suggests to me...a deliberate act.

and this is to say nothing of the tightening. part of me was upset about the comey announcement because it gives them plausible deniability as to why the polls tightened as much as they did (while still being way the frick off)

but look at the margins with the exception of his brief week long run in September. they had him down in AZ, close in TX, UT was a tossup between him and mcmuffin

quote:

---

but their pollsters may not have that luxury.

---

not if they did what they were told.

quote:

---

Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona

---

some of the pollsters that have stood out to me had florida fricking off. RCP doesn't mean shite to me. averaging is stupid anyway. I use it to show how an outlier flips the rcp result that people trust. what can rcp do but average results

florida was considered a 3-gazillion point win by most pollsters over several months and then BOOM it's close. they get a pass because they can explain that away as fbi news. OH, huge trump win, most had him winning or tied and they were still waaay off. PA, WI, MI, MN, NC...polls were out of the ordinary wrong. and states that matter...they were all wrong for Clinton.

come one. doesn't matter. if you don't believe that it's not me saying something bad about you, but most people see through it, and they're explaining it away exactly as I was before I started to suspect deliberate manipulation

lots of undecided, 2 unlikeable candidates.

yeah, you're super fricking smart, huh? say something or suck my dick. you're so smart, why were you so wrong? the polls were wrong, you made fun of people for suggesting that...and guess what...they're fricking wrong.

quote:

---

I have to stop being stunned at how little people know about or understand statistical analysis and forecasting.

---

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America, by Michael Wheeler (W.W. Norton & Co. 1976; Dell paperback 1978).

quote:

---

'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'

---

quote:

---

8 June 1891 "Sir, —It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics'

---

quote:

---

Robert Giffen in 1892: three types of unreliable witnesses, a liar, a damned liar, and an expert

---

quote:

---

Nature, page 74 November 26, 1885: :"A well-known lawyer, now a judge, once grouped witnesses into three classes: simple liars, damned liars, and statisticians

---

Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists (2001), by University of Delaware sociologist Joel Best


Nate is in the group, worst of liars. He used statistics to bolster his not so well hidden bias

quote:

---

Nate didn't say he wouldn't win the presidential race

---

as a technical matter...no. as a practical matter...are you fricking high?

quote:

---

win proved correct

---

that's what matters

quote:

---

, but it wasn't any kind of true forecast - it was just a guess

---

for north Carolina it was based on information from previous elections...I said minimum 3 maximum 5...which you know means median 4...he won by 4

so you can suck my cock

quote:

---

Nate is in the group, worst of liars. He used statistics to bolster his not so well hidden bias

---

That's why he predicted the Republicans take control of both houses of congress in 2014? The Democrats hated him then.

The dude is just a stat nerd that started off coming up with PECOTA...got bored with baseball stats and applied his skills to politics. He's been way more right than wrong and everyone who he shows is more likely to lose than win hates him at that moment.

quote:

---

as a technical matter...no.

---

As a factual matter.

quote:

---

quote:
win proved correct
that's what matters

---

In a zero sum wager yes, but that's not what he was doing.

quote:

---

so you can suck my cock

---

Look dude, I know you're desperate for someone other than your mother to touch you dick, but I'll pass.