They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win. If you predict 90% chance that something will happen, and it always happens, your prediction is wrong because you should have predicted 100%.
When I hear someone say “you can’t trust the polls because they got 2016 ‘wrong’” they are just telling me they don’t understand statistics.
And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.
I’m not sure this is entirely true. Many polls just look at the popular vote, but most of the polls that claim “chance of winning” take into account the EC.
538 had her going into the election with a 70% chance of winning the electoral college. Nate Silver also went on multiple shows basically doing everything he could to get people to understand that meant 3 out of 10 times she loses.
No, 538 (and RCP?) actually has a rolling projection of ‘real’ chance to win the EC. But the chances of Hillary declined from >90% to 70% in the last week or so. When she was >90% everybody would say it looked like she was going to win, and that’s what people remember.
It’s been awhile since I read anything about that, but it seems like the last time I read about it, was something along: “80% of polls have Hillary projected to win”, but the actual polls that they were using were all almost within the margin of error.
People in almost never speak about the margin of error when presenting a poll, especially one that’s favorable to them.
f you look at the fine print, and see the margin of error percentage, then you apply the maximum amount to both people in the race, you’ll see a lot of times it’s a tie.
I understand the point you’re making about probabilities, but we’re speaking in the context of politics. Polls accurately predicted the results in 2008 and 2012. Something fundamentally changed in 2016, and the polls were off across the board.
And in reality we are talking about an weighted error difference of about 1.3/1.5 points between 2008/2012 and 2016. It’s not like they got it massively wrong.
You said something changed, and then I showed how last election they were actually more accurate than in the past. And I already pointed out that they were “wrong” about 2016. So I’m not sure what your point is about this.
they are just telling me they don’t understand statistics.
You’re right, but in fairness to the regular person who gets their news from regular news outlets, they were being told that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning when in reality it was more like 75%. The fact is while everyone was cocky in 2016 and nervous in 2020 I was the opposite because I followed the polls and Biden in 2020 had consistently bigger leads on Trump than Clinton in 2016 with even bigger leads in swing states. His odds of winning were much greater than hers and the likely margin of victory was much higher, but they were being underestimated by a media machine that was absolutely snakebit after going all in on congratulating HRC in June for being the first woman president with a dem supermajority in both houses of congress and flipping Texas blue.
Funny that this was in response to me and not the above poster that claimed that something happened in 2016 that made them no longer reliable.
Additionally, I suspect you don’t really know what you are talking about because the issue you point out is not a statistical issue, but that they are just not a good measurement to begin with. Which isn’t even a good point either because they do a pretty good job of consistently getting pretty close. In the last election the mean error was only about 4.3 and they didn’t seem to favor either side.
Polls would be ok if the sample was peefectly random. However it is never fully random, and in practice they always overrepresent politically active people and underrepresent the poor.
Well Hillary didnt pay off her hookers 2 weeks before the election… like that kinda means he cheated. So Id say its a lot harder to win when you play by the rules. And Im not defending Hillary cuz I know she shafted Bernie, but what she did is not even on the same scope as what donnie rapist did/does on a daily basis.
They do and they don’t. Some people see polls and say “why bother”. Some people see polls and scream “GET OUT AND VOTE”. They may not be indicative of the final outcome, but they are a motivating factor for a lot of people.
The first sane take in this whole thread. Modern polling is unreliable when the margins for victory in certain elections can come down to literally a single vote in some cases.
Yeah, polls are stupid and useless; only the election day poll counts…though last week some idiot on here was desperately trying to defend polling is being both dependable and correct (as long as you throw out the ones that were wrong)
You know at some point you’re going to have to consider it’s the moral obligation of Biden and the people supporting him sending weapons to Israel to change.
They are more or less. It’s part of why our primary system sucks. There’s still downballot races though and you can and should vote for progressives to be the Democrat nominee in them. And you can cast a symbolic noncommitted for president to express displeasure with Biden.
Biden has more than half the total delegate count already pledged to him. Primaries are over, Biden has won regardless of the outcome of the remaining primaries and will be the democratic nominee in 2024.
Hidenberg handed Hitler the chancellorship. Hidenberg, the only check on the Nazi power, remained president until his death until 1934. After which, using the Enabling Act, Hitler was able to proclaim himself both chancellor and president.
Hitler becomes chancellor because Brünig, Hidenberg, Papen, and Schleicher all think they can control and temper Hitler all while staying in power and keeping the left wing out of power.
I was contending “Nazis lost the election to Hindenburg … and came to power anyway in 1933 regardless.” Hitler didn’t come to power for some amorphous reasons, but specific decisions by people in power. I agree that material conditions are important, but it’s so vague here that it’s meaningless and can be shifted at any point in this discussion to support your position.
The Nazis agitated support on multiple fronts including electoral politics. Hindenburg surrounded himself with other military conservative and as conditions in the streets continued to worse economically and support swung to the nsdap, they urged him to give support to Hitler. However, the Nazis had won a plurality of the vote in every Reitsrat election starting in 1930.
Electoral politics alone isn’t the answer. Never was. Garnering support on the ground is difficult work.
Your initial presentation was vague. I agree that it could be made clear, but your initial posts just hinted at it.
There are some similarities and a some important differences. If you don’t acknowledge the differences. I think you haphazardly write responses with half remembered idiomatic expressions, sensationalism, and simplistic thinking.
With that said, you land in positions I might agree with. But you do a disservice to leftists. Do better.
Polls don’t mean shit, go vote
Yeah, the polls had Hillary winning easily in 2016. Don’t trust them.
They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win. If you predict 90% chance that something will happen, and it always happens, your prediction is wrong because you should have predicted 100%.
When I hear someone say “you can’t trust the polls because they got 2016 ‘wrong’” they are just telling me they don’t understand statistics.
And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.
I’m not sure this is entirely true. Many polls just look at the popular vote, but most of the polls that claim “chance of winning” take into account the EC.
538 had her going into the election with a 70% chance of winning the electoral college. Nate Silver also went on multiple shows basically doing everything he could to get people to understand that meant 3 out of 10 times she loses.
No, 538 (and RCP?) actually has a rolling projection of ‘real’ chance to win the EC. But the chances of Hillary declined from >90% to 70% in the last week or so. When she was >90% everybody would say it looked like she was going to win, and that’s what people remember.
Oh yeah, the Comey Probe. Back in the days when having the FBI open an investigation into you was enough to kill your presidential aspirations.
Or at least that was the case for Hillary Clinton and the moderate voter bloc, but somehow Donald Trump is not held to such high standards.
It’s been awhile since I read anything about that, but it seems like the last time I read about it, was something along: “80% of polls have Hillary projected to win”, but the actual polls that they were using were all almost within the margin of error.
tl;dr 80% had Hillary winning by about 2-3%.
People in almost never speak about the margin of error when presenting a poll, especially one that’s favorable to them.
f you look at the fine print, and see the margin of error percentage, then you apply the maximum amount to both people in the race, you’ll see a lot of times it’s a tie.
I understand the point you’re making about probabilities, but we’re speaking in the context of politics. Polls accurately predicted the results in 2008 and 2012. Something fundamentally changed in 2016, and the polls were off across the board.
And “polls were historically accurate” in 2022.
And in reality we are talking about an weighted error difference of about 1.3/1.5 points between 2008/2012 and 2016. It’s not like they got it massively wrong.
Pollsters gave Hillary a 90% chance to win, likely because of over-representation of college graduates in polling, as well as a late shift in support in swing states.
You said something changed, and then I showed how last election they were actually more accurate than in the past. And I already pointed out that they were “wrong” about 2016. So I’m not sure what your point is about this.
I know right? Some people haven’t played XCOM, and it shows.
You’re right, but in fairness to the regular person who gets their news from regular news outlets, they were being told that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning when in reality it was more like 75%. The fact is while everyone was cocky in 2016 and nervous in 2020 I was the opposite because I followed the polls and Biden in 2020 had consistently bigger leads on Trump than Clinton in 2016 with even bigger leads in swing states. His odds of winning were much greater than hers and the likely margin of victory was much higher, but they were being underestimated by a media machine that was absolutely snakebit after going all in on congratulating HRC in June for being the first woman president with a dem supermajority in both houses of congress and flipping Texas blue.
What are you talking about? Polls are not valid statistics, they are riddled with biases that can’t be eliminated.
Funny that this was in response to me and not the above poster that claimed that something happened in 2016 that made them no longer reliable.
Additionally, I suspect you don’t really know what you are talking about because the issue you point out is not a statistical issue, but that they are just not a good measurement to begin with. Which isn’t even a good point either because they do a pretty good job of consistently getting pretty close. In the last election the mean error was only about 4.3 and they didn’t seem to favor either side.
Polls would be ok if the sample was peefectly random. However it is never fully random, and in practice they always overrepresent politically active people and underrepresent the poor.
Well Hillary didnt pay off her hookers 2 weeks before the election… like that kinda means he cheated. So Id say its a lot harder to win when you play by the rules. And Im not defending Hillary cuz I know she shafted Bernie, but what she did is not even on the same scope as what donnie rapist did/does on a daily basis.
paying off hookers isn’t actually cheating, the issue is that he used campaign funds to do it and that’s fraud (but not electoral fraud)
They do and they don’t. Some people see polls and say “why bother”. Some people see polls and scream “GET OUT AND VOTE”. They may not be indicative of the final outcome, but they are a motivating factor for a lot of people.
The first sane take in this whole thread. Modern polling is unreliable when the margins for victory in certain elections can come down to literally a single vote in some cases.
Show up and get counted when it matters.
Yeah, polls are stupid and useless; only the election day poll counts…though last week some idiot on here was desperately trying to defend polling is being both dependable and correct (as long as you throw out the ones that were wrong)
Vote Uncommitted.
That was for primaries. Now it’s time to bury nazis.
Many states haven’t had their primaries, like NY. But yes you are otherwise 100% correct
Username checks out.
Are primaries over? I thought there was more https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/calendar
Officially? No. Effectively? Yes.
I’m seeing quite a few months of primaries to go
And quite a lot of Biden still supporting Genocide.
So uncommitted it is.
Oh, I see. You were just playing dumb to parrot “genocide joe.” My bad. I shouldn’t have given you the benefit of the doubt.
You know at some point you’re going to have to consider it’s the moral obligation of Biden and the people supporting him sending weapons to Israel to change.
It’s sad that you think playing dumb is a requirement to think that.
They are more or less. It’s part of why our primary system sucks. There’s still downballot races though and you can and should vote for progressives to be the Democrat nominee in them. And you can cast a symbolic noncommitted for president to express displeasure with Biden.
Biden has more than half the total delegate count already pledged to him. Primaries are over, Biden has won regardless of the outcome of the remaining primaries and will be the democratic nominee in 2024.
What did anyone actually think Uncommitted was going to take the nomination or something?
redacted
Hidenberg handed Hitler the chancellorship. Hidenberg, the only check on the Nazi power, remained president until his death until 1934. After which, using the Enabling Act, Hitler was able to proclaim himself both chancellor and president.
Hitler becomes chancellor because Brünig, Hidenberg, Papen, and Schleicher all think they can control and temper Hitler all while staying in power and keeping the left wing out of power.
redacted
Good call naming that disasterous blimp after him, eh?
deleted by creator
I was contending “Nazis lost the election to Hindenburg … and came to power anyway in 1933 regardless.” Hitler didn’t come to power for some amorphous reasons, but specific decisions by people in power. I agree that material conditions are important, but it’s so vague here that it’s meaningless and can be shifted at any point in this discussion to support your position.
The Nazis agitated support on multiple fronts including electoral politics. Hindenburg surrounded himself with other military conservative and as conditions in the streets continued to worse economically and support swung to the nsdap, they urged him to give support to Hitler. However, the Nazis had won a plurality of the vote in every Reitsrat election starting in 1930.
Electoral politics alone isn’t the answer. Never was. Garnering support on the ground is difficult work.
redacted
Your initial presentation was vague. I agree that it could be made clear, but your initial posts just hinted at it.
There are some similarities and a some important differences. If you don’t acknowledge the differences. I think you haphazardly write responses with half remembered idiomatic expressions, sensationalism, and simplistic thinking.
With that said, you land in positions I might agree with. But you do a disservice to leftists. Do better.
No.