Missed the presidential prediction. Missed the Senate, too. My question is, considering their past accuracy, why did they get it wrong? Polls are just numbers. A honest poll would be nothing more than a tabulation of people polled.
Did they poll the wrong people? That's my first guess. Second guess was that the sample was not big enough. Out of millions of voters, polls usually sample about one thousand, which could easily not be a representative sample. All my life I've questioned sizes of poll samples when used to make predictions of large populations.
Did an unexpected demographic decide to behave in a different manner and either not show up, or show up, to vote in unexpected numbers? I wonder about this.
Of course the polls showed a close race just before the election. They might still be close, just not close enough to have called it correctly.
That's basically the failure of extrapolation of definitive numbers to a whole set.
Unless it's a true distribution, it will be skewed and become an incorrect prediction in polls, say.
Hell, this election reminds me of a statistician going to an NRA rally and asking how many guns per capita they own (or any other trite collection of like-minded individuals).
I didn't trust polling from day one. I kept telling people polling is bullshit, but nobody believed me. They kept telling me Nate and his genius followers couldn't be wrong, but I knew that the polling was flawed from day one.
As more voters live online, polling gets less certain.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 08, 2016, 11:42:42 PM
That's basically the failure of extrapolation of definitive numbers to a whole set.
Unless it's a true distribution, it will be skewed and become an incorrect prediction in polls, say.
Hell, this election reminds me of a statistician going to an NRA rally and asking how many guns per capita they own (or any other trite collection of like-minded individuals).
Pollsters are supposed to know about unintentional skewing. I guess once in a while, the usual methods aren't going to work, because eventually you're bound to extrapolate from an unrepresentative sample, even when you follow the rules. The results of this election also got the reporters wondering about the Comey influence. Before, the election, the general opinion seemed to be, people have already decided, it won't make a difference. Personally, I think it had to hurt. Yes a lot of people were decided, but not everyone decided well enough to withstand a jolt of that magnitude, and that subgroup may have been unrepresented in the polls taken before Comey.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 09, 2016, 12:51:47 AM
As more voters live online, polling gets less certain.
I've heard there is a problem with polling via the net, but I don't know specifically how the net skews results. Sometimes the explanations are surprising when they are articulated.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 08, 2016, 11:46:28 PM
I didn't trust polling from day one. I kept telling people polling is bullshit, but nobody believed me. They kept telling me Nate and his genius followers couldn't be wrong, but I knew that the polling was flawed from day one.
While errors in polls can always be accidently introduced, I have been more surprised by how right they are most of the time. Actually, I'm more surprised by that than surprised by last nights snafu, which I supposed was destined to happen some time or another. I think bullshit is a bit too strong of a criticism, because that implies the error was intentional, common in propaganda polls, but not usually by Reuters and the like. I never heard of this Nate Silver guy until the other night. I'm not sure how he established himself, but his name is certainly not as recognizable as Pew or even USA Today.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 08, 2016, 11:46:28 PM
I didn't trust polling from day one. I kept telling people polling is bullshit, but nobody believed me. They kept telling me Nate and his genius followers couldn't be wrong, but I knew that the polling was flawed from day one.
I believed you ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on November 09, 2016, 01:18:33 AM
While errors in polls can always be accidently introduced, I have been more surprised by how right they are most of the time. Actually, I'm more surprised by that than surprised by last nights snafu, which I supposed was destined to happen some time or another. I think bullshit is a bit too strong of a criticism, because that implies the error was intentional, common in propaganda polls, but not usually by Reuters and the like. I never heard of this Nate Silver guy until the other night. I'm not sure how he established himself, but his name is certainly not as recognizable as Pew or even USA Today.
I will never trust polls again.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 09, 2016, 08:16:26 AM
I will never trust polls again.
I think we just took them too far. I was infatuated with their track record, and gave them more credit than they deserved. The commentators I watched were like that last night, too. It's true, you can't completely trust them, but you can trust them some. To give credit to the better pollsters, these guys are making the best predictions they can in what are almost always very close popular votes. They attempt to parse out something meaningful from very small disparities. Then factor in the effect of the electoral college, and how close they manage to come still seems impressive to me.
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2016, 07:17:23 AM
I believed you ;-)
He is serious about that. APA never believes in any kind of polls, lol.
Undoomed had an interesting perspective in this. He's a Trump supporter, but I still think his explanation for the downfall of the democratic party is valid. One of the things he thinks led to Trump winning was this: While the Republican party traditionally represented crazy Christian nutjobs, the Democratic party ran on identity politics. The Left Wing media portrayed their opposition as racists, sexists, homophobes, idiots, etc. As a result, the Democrats began to be perceived as nutjobs as well. It may also be that many Trump supporters were simply too ashamed to admit their position when polled, which again is related to identity politics and a fear of being labelled a racist, sexist, homophobe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBDnp-R75P8
Quote from: SGOS on November 08, 2016, 11:35:52 PM
My question is, considering their past accuracy, why did they get it wrong? Polls are just numbers. A honest poll would be nothing more than a tabulation of people polled.
The mainstream media
must have close elections, or their viewers will be completely uninterested in watching the coverage, so the advertisers get no bump in sales. The Republicans
must have a close election, because only then can a bit of illicit jiggling win the thing.
Therefore, close elections, polls be damned.
NPR just interviewed a pollster for Edison Research. He said he doesn't know any pollsters that know what went wrong, but everyone is trying to figure it out. His bet is the area of turnout. People answer the questions, perhaps sincerely in pre election polls, but this doesn't guarantee that they actually turnout to vote. It's a simple enough explanation.
So the next question would logically be why did the demographics of turnout change from the intent to the actual turn out? I'm going to paraphrase here a good bit, because it was a radio broadcast. The Edison Research guy said there was a striking difference between Trump vs Clinton supporters over the state of the economy. Those that thought it was OK to great were going to vote for Clinton. Those who thought it was a disaster were going to support Trump. The next part of his explanation sounds key to the whole thing; Those thinking the economy was a disaster numbered in the mid 60% range. My added interpretation (and I think the pollster's) is this constitutes a group in dire straights that is highly motivated for change, and highly motivated to actually vote. Trump simply resonated with the most disenfranchised wanting more change.
This makes sense to me. Clinton being OK and all sounded kind of stale to me, a product of the roaring 80s, telling people everything is good. Even if people think it's good, what motivates them to vote? It has to be what they perceive as the status quo, and people just don't get excited about the status quo.
This was Obama's strength. With the end of the Bush era, hope for change became overwhelming for voters. Things were in dire straits with wounded hopes in Iraq, an international banking crisis. There was lots to be done. Lots to be restored. Lots of opportunity to change direction. Stated openly or not, that is what people perceived in Obama, At least enough people to vote him into the White House. Even then, Hillary was not imparting that message as articulately, I thought.
The nature of the electoral college is helping to amplify how much the polls appear to be off. As 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/) points out, if 1 out of every 100 Trump voters had voted Clinton instead then Clinton would have won 307 electoral votes, the polls would have nailed the popular vote and correctly called every state except North Carolina. While higher then expected turnout among white voters without a college degree looks like the early front runner for what the polls missed, it could simply be that 1% of Trump voters switched away from Clinton too late for the polls to notice.
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 09, 2016, 07:33:22 PM
While higher then expected turnout among white voters without a college degree looks like the early front runner for what the polls missed, it could simply be that 1% of Trump voters switched away from Clinton too late for the polls to notice.
That could have happened, but what I perceive about party politics is that people don't switch. They more often accommodate, rationalize, or deny what they find to be dissonant about their candidates. Independents will switch, which is what makes them independents. Are you talking about independents or actual Democrats switching sides? People don't jump ship from a party very often. There is an ocean of ideology involved in party politics that would require a lot of massive changes in attitude to simply walk away from the current standard bearer.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 09, 2016, 08:16:26 AM
I will never trust polls again.
A man your age? About time!
Quote from: SGOS on November 09, 2016, 07:54:10 PM
Are you talking about independents or actual Democrats switching sides?
I'd guess a mix. Probably mostly independents but also Democrats--especially white and less educated Democrats. The New York Times Exit polls (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html), if they are still worth anything, show Trump picking up 9% of Democrats (up 5% from 2012) compared to Clinton's 7% of Republicans (up 4% from 2012)--although Clinton took 15% of conservatives against Trump's 10% of liberals.
The conservatives who switched to Hillary, were butt hurt that they couldn't continue the Bush Dynasty with JEB.
QuoteThe New York Times Exit polls, if they are still worth anything, show Trump picking up 9% of Democrats (up 5% from 2012).
I never would have guessed it was that high. I assume they were protest votes. I'd like to understand the personal psychology involved, for no other reason than just being nosey, I guess.
Quote from: SGOS on November 10, 2016, 05:54:23 AM
I never would have guessed it was that high. I assume they were protest votes. I'd like to understand the personal psychology involved, for no other reason than just being nosey, I guess.
Hypothesis ... butt hurt Bernie supporters ... and many Democrats aren't Leftist refugees from Woodstock.
Quote from: Baruch on November 10, 2016, 07:25:25 AM
Hypothesis ... butt hurt Bernie supporters ... and many Democrats aren't Leftist refugees from Woodstock.
Had Sanders won the nomination, how many Hillary supporters would have voted for Trump?
Quote from: SGOS on November 10, 2016, 07:32:06 AM
Had Sanders won the nomination, how many Hillary supporters would have voted for Trump?
!. No Republicans would have crossed over to support Bernie
2. What is left of the old Democrat party would have probably stayed home, rather than vote for Trump
Quote from: Baruch on November 10, 2016, 07:35:49 AM
What is left of the old Democrat party would have probably stayed home, rather than vote for Trump
They have been calling for party loyalty. Some may jump ship, I suppose, or just let it sink.
Quote from: SGOS on November 10, 2016, 05:54:23 AM
I'd like to understand the personal psychology involved, for no other reason than just being nosey, I guess.
If I had to guess, and it would be a guess, I'd say that they were largely less educated whites from the 'rust belt' who liked Trump's pledge to bring back coal/fracking/manufacturing jobs and his correlated anti-free trade, anti-immigration, anti-EPA policies.
I think, after the big "surprise" of election day, many people will be surprised again, when Trump doesn't manage to deliver on any of his campaign promises - no wall, no indictment of Clinton, no Muslim ban, no repeal of the ACA, no revamping of trade policies, etc.
My hope is that Trump will show his true colors as a liberal, and be a much better president than anyone expects.
Perhaps a futile hope, especially for a pessimist such as myself.
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2016, 08:06:55 PM
A man your age? About time!
Yeah, politics puts a whole new spin on "poll dancing."
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eIARuH0-x4Y/ScEn6z-clqI/AAAAAAAAAk0/e4rDrMNq5YU/w1200-h630-p-nu/2007-524-pole-dancing-poll.jpg)
My dad, when he was a teen, went door to door taking polls. He was taught way back then (during WW II) that you can elicit whatever response you want, from a citizen, by rephrasing the same question. Ah yes, poll taking is so scientific ... like Houdini!
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 10, 2016, 04:06:10 PM
I think, after the big "surprise" of election day, many people will be surprised again, when Trump doesn't manage to deliver on any of his campaign promises - no wall, no indictment of Clinton, no Muslim ban, no repeal of the ACA, no revamping of trade policies, etc.
My hope is that Trump will show his true colors as a liberal, and be a much better president than anyone expects.
Perhaps a futile hope, especially for a pessimist such as myself.
Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan said yesterday repealing the Affordable Care Act is a high priority and I would bet money the ACA will be repealed and replaced, with what I don't know.
Trump has already planned a trip to China to purchase their wall. :-)
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 09, 2016, 07:33:22 PM
The nature of the electoral college is helping to amplify how much the polls appear to be off. As 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/) points out, if 1 out of every 100 Trump voters had voted Clinton instead then Clinton would have won 307 electoral votes, the polls would have nailed the popular vote and correctly called every state except North Carolina. While higher then expected turnout among white voters without a college degree looks like the early front runner for what the polls missed, it could simply be that 1% of Trump voters switched away from Clinton too late for the polls to notice.
The Electoral College system has been ruined through State Gerrymandering. That has to be corrected or there will never be rational voting again.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 10, 2016, 06:40:48 PM
Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan said yesterday repealing the Affordable Care Act is a high priority and I would bet money the ACA will be repealed and replaced, with what I don't know.
Trump has already planned a trip to China to purchase their wall. :-)
The Chinese are corrupt enough to sell their icon for the right amount.
Would a single-payer be all that bad, even a Medicare for all? Of course we can't afford it, but that never stopped a politician. Or is protecting Obama's rotten legacy that important?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 10, 2016, 06:40:48 PM
Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan said yesterday repealing the Affordable Care Act is a high priority and I would bet money the ACA will be repealed and replaced, with what I don't know.
Trump has already planned a trip to China to purchase their wall. :-)
Trump and the Republicans have said they want to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. But they never say with what. The truth is they want to return to 20% increases for all every year and max profits to the insurance industry.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 02:14:51 AM
Trump and the Republicans have said they want to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. But they never say with what. The truth is they want to return to 20% increases for all every year and max profits to the insurance industry.
Return?
Before ACA = 20% increase per year
After ACA = 20% increase per year
There is no magic fairy that will provide free health insurance, let alone free health care. Fortunately both are unaffordable ... otherwise we would be hip deep in centenarians.
Healthcare is extremely complicated and there are no easy answers. Medicare for all wouldn't address the rising cost of healthcare. ACA needs to change, as it was compromised from the beginning and never was delivered as designed because several states refused to expand Medicaid. I sincerely hope the system will be improved.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 11, 2016, 08:33:36 AM
Healthcare is extremely complicated and there are no easy answers. Medicare for all wouldn't address the rising cost of healthcare. ACA needs to change, as it was compromised from the beginning and never was delivered as designed because several states refused to expand Medicaid. I sincerely hope the system will be improved.
I agree. Obamacare has got many people insured, but it needs improvement. Fixing, not utter repeal.
Can we start making Pollish jokes now?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 11, 2016, 08:39:18 AM
Can we start making Pollish jokes now?
Only if they stay "pollish".
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 08:49:27 AM
Only if they stay "pollish".
We'll have to ask a bunch of people about that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 11, 2016, 08:39:18 AM
Can we start making Pollish jokes now?
"They don't know shit from Shinola" (ancient shoe polish from my dad's day).
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 09:13:14 AM
"They don't know shit from Shinola" (ancient shoe polish from my dad's day).
"Pollish", not "polish"...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 09:17:27 AM
"Pollish", not "polish"...
He made a bad pun ...
"Can we start making Pollish jokes now?" ... Polls vs Poles (as in Warsaw) vs Poles (as in politician) ... a triple entendre. Do please keep up ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 09:47:21 AM
He made a bad pun ...
"Can we start making Pollish jokes now?" ... Polls vs Poles (as in Warsaw) vs Poles (as in politician) ... a triple entendre. Do please keep up ;-)
We were talking about elections. "Pollish" was appropriate. Keep up yourself...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 09:50:56 AM
We were talking about elections. "Pollish" was appropriate. Keep up yourself...
Says you ... Shinola is a prefect cultural reference to politics ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 09:52:41 AM
Says you ... Shinola is a prefect cultural reference to politics ;-)
"Shinola" here is a reference to mere bribery.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 09:55:57 AM
"Shinola" here is a reference to mere bribery.
Exactly ... so how much to I have to pay?
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 10:03:11 AM
Exactly ... so how much to I have to pay?
Whatcha got that we want?
I am the one offering a bribe ... er, campaign contribution. What ware you willing to do for my money?
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 12:07:45 PM
I am the one offering a bribe ... er, campaign contribution. What ware you willing to do for my money?
You're the briber. What are you offerring? I won't settle for less than $20B per vote.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 13, 2016, 04:20:20 AM
You're the briber. What are you offerring? I won't settle for less than $20B per vote.
Most politicians that get elected are cheaper tarts than that!