patrick.net

YesYNot says

Those events happen whenever someone makes a 3 point shot. Most people just don't grok statistics and they can't learn to see past their incorrect intuition. That's why so many people say statistics lie or you can make statistics say whatever you want.

Brah, whatever makes you feel better.

Nate was in the tank for Clinton. Five states wrong = fail.

Great job Ironman.

joshuatrio says

Brah, I understand that he gave Trump a chance.... like 29% (ish). Which is not even *GASP* 1 out of every 3 coin tosses!

YOU SEEM TO BE BLINDED by the fact that... he more or less predicted a Clinton landslide, not just with his model, but his own personal prediction, and has been laughing at Trump since the primaries.

OH, I just realized this is lying TPB (or someone just like him). You don't even follow 538, and never did. You hated him becasue he was saying your guy was unlikely to win. Again, for the entire 5 days before the election he had Trump at 34 to 36%.

Now after never reading his stuff even once you're an expert on what he does.

Go back to BReitbart. THey're geared more for your reading, intellectual honesty, and intelligence level.

Can polls be "wrong"?

marcus is NOT deplorable says

OH, I just realized this is lying TPB (or someone just like him). You don't even follow 538, and never did.

I've been on the site since 2006 (pre-forum/old forum).

Your wrong. Again.

joshuatrio says

One of the comments on poor Nate's site

Ugly crier

Ironman says

were giving Clinton a 4% to 8% lead based on that false reporting.

The rolling average and Nate's prediction based on the polls had her winning by 3.5%. She won by 0.2%. So, they were off by 3.3%. If they were oversampling by 5-14%, you'd expect them to be off by 2-11% if you think that there are really just 3% more dems than republicans. This is why I tried to get you to make a prediction on the popular vote before the election based on your argument. I gave a predicted popular vote and a range of likely results, and explained why. You did not provide a popular vote prediction and you did not provide a range. So now, you just have hand waiving.

Ironman says

YesYNot says

marcus is NOT deplorable says

EVENTS WITH A 30 to 36% CHANCE OF HAPPENING , CAN HAPPEN !!"

Somebody requote this chart for Marcus, because he won't see my post, as he has me on ignore. On Election Day (this chart), Nate had Trump at 28% and had Clinton winning with 302 in the EC... It was a MAJOR miss, and this was the trend with Nate the whole cycle:

-

-

-

"Expert Nate" was WRONG on the popular vote

He was WRONG on the E.C.

and he was WRONG on MANY states

TOTAL FAIL

Agree.

Ironman says

I posted my predicted chart of the states with my EC prediction in Thunder's thread, it's there too, go look at it. YOU never did that.

I never did it, because predicting state by state is a fools game, as I said beforehand. It's just too random. I asked you to predict the popular vote to see if you actually believed the argument you were making, and you wouldn't do it.

Ironman says

I was talking about ALL the polls, not just Nate's.

Nate doesn't have any polls. If the average of all polls oversampled by 9.5% (average of 5 and 14%), and there are only 3% more dems than republicans, then you would predict that the average of polls would be off by 6.5%. They were off by 3%, and it was for other reasons. The RCP rolling average Hillary advantage was 3.2% (Nate had 3.5%) and her actual advantage was 0.2% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)

Some might find the chart in this article interesting. It shows that the accuracy of this poll (or lack there of) was completely normal relative to historical results.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/how-much-did-polls-miss-the-mark-on-trump-and-why/

Ironman says

Nice try spinning it back to popular vote

Your point was about the popular vote being wrong, and that's all that's somewhat predictable so that's what I focused on before and after the election.

Look at the chart in the WaPo article. This result was within the expected range for anyone who was willing to look at the accuracy of polls over the years.

Ironman says

Predictable by what?? Your WaPo link says 1.7% (if you believe that). They missed Clinton by more than that and they certainly missed Trump by HUGE margin.

Go read the text. The 1.7 value is the 'candidate error,' which is defined as 1/2 of the difference between polled value and election value. If you prefer the raw difference, just multiply the y axis by 2. The data came from the National Council on Public Polls. Do you have reason to have an issue with them too?

Of course you can get a bigger error by averaging over a month. A month ago, Trump polled terribly, because his debate performance was fresh on everybody's mind. The last week or two before the election, he polled much better, b/c Comey reminded everybody about the emails and Trump managed to stay on message.

Wow, Bernie kicked the Shit out of Clinton in NH, MN, and IN. Very key states.

So sad the rigged DNC elections with Brazile giving debate questions (now more than twice, according to wikileaks which is still leaking Podesta emails) in advance to Hillary but not Bernie, and the Rigged Insider Superdelegates ended up nominating such a weak, despised candidate who drew millions upon millions less than Obama.

Whereas Bernie would have fired up the base and brought millions of new voters.

But it's all the electoral college, a known entity for 200+ years, that robbed Hillary.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

But it's all the electoral college, a known entity for 200+ years, that robbed Hillary.

Is this post in the right thread?

Ironman says

Are you going to whine on and on about Comey stealing the election from Hillary. You do know that MANY people vote early and when you're within the last two weeks, the majority of people have already made up their minds. There's very few undecided in the last weeks.

The point was not that Comey stole the election. It's that a 30 day average is not representative of what was happening during the week of the election. Hillary's lead was 5-6 points in the first two to three weeks, and 2-3 during the last week. Maybe it was Comey, maybe it was Trump, maybe it was the wind. But, a 30 day average is pointless when things change a lot during that period. You can clearly see this by going to the RealClearPolitics results. Stop pretending to be ignorant just because it favors your argument.

Are you going to recognize your mistake regarding 1.7 versus 3.4 or are you going to ignore that? History clearly shows that polls being off by 2-3 points is completely expected, and is definitely not proof of shenanigans by pollsters. Take your tinfoil hat off.

The problem was Trump was trending upwards before the Comey announcement.

Stop whinging. It was a shitty candidate that cost you the election.

Clinton was the strongest Democrat candidate though.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

At the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner, Seth Meyers and President Obama joked about the possibilityof a Trump White House run.

Elitism and Arrogance run common in personality traits.

Seth, Obama - Why dont you to form a business making something that is tangible and selling it. The rest of Americas had to do this to build our bridges, roads, plane, trains, technology. This building of things then gave people income to watch said Seth and TV, and also to elect Obama president.

In their arrogance, they became like fools, - entirely forgetfull of how they got to where they were.

America - Arrogance is wrong, humility is better.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

Wow, Bernie kicked the Shit out of Clinton in NH, MN, and IN. Very key states.

So sad the rigged DNC elections with Brazile giving debate questions (now more than twice, according to wikileaks which is still leaking Podesta emails) in advance to Hillary but not Bernie, and the Rigged Insider Superdelegates ended up nominating such a weak, despised candidate who drew millions upon millions less than Obama.

Whereas Bernie would have fired up the base and brought millions of new voters.

But it's all the electoral college, a known entity for 200+ years, that robbed Hillary.

What's really sad is that because of the near blackout by the msm regarding the wiki leaks emails, most Americans and nearly all overseas people have NO CLUE. And the the disingenuous democrat shills on this site are VERY happy about that and nearly entirely ignore the matter.

Personally if I was a Democrat, I'd be calling for Brazille and Podestas heads

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

The problem was Trump was trending upwards

Thank you for proving my point that Trump trended upwards in the last week and a half, which means that Ironman shouldn't be using a month long average to get the polling result. Now maybe we can stop talking about Comey and go back to the point that the polling error was completely within the historical norm.

Peter P says

Clinton was the strongest Democrat candidate though.

False

If the polls were not the issue that leaves the cause as Muricans were fed up with Obama's BS?

There was low voter turnout but that is not the cause.

He needs to change name to Nate Aluminum, he was way off.