Moore or Jones?

[homersapien 11,453]

20 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

You seem to enjoy these train rides. 

Nothing wrong with FiveThirtyEight and their data. I think they do a good job. Happy?

Now if we can get back to reality please. I can agree polls were close, but that wasn't the premise of my question. The vast majority of polls missed on this election. The numbers don't lie and this wasn't horseshoes.  

That's a perfect expression of your misunderstanding.

[homersapien 11,453]

27 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I guess it does hurt some. Too bad you get called names for just making a post with facts. But that seems to have become the norm here. Funny that this is the so-called Auburn "family." Sure isn't my idea of a family when people can't seem to make a post without name calling and belittling other posters because they have a different opinions. The forum rules seem to have gone down the tube.

See, that's the point.  While you may be entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Don't act like a simpleton.  National polls measure popular vote.  Most of them had Clinton winning the popular vote.  Clinton won the popular vote.  How close they got is a different story.  There is a reason that statisticians use "margin of error" and the predicted Hillary win in the national polling was within that margin.  It wasn't like they had her up +10 and it ended up +2. Even if all you took was quantitative analysis, you know better than to try and frame the question this way.  It's disingenuous and you know it.

Where people were off was in a handful of state polls.  The margins for Trump's win in most of those swing states was razor thin.  Most polls have a margin of error of 2-4%.  The margin of victory for Trump in 4 key battleground states:

Michigan:  0.3%
Wisconsin:  0.7%
Pennsylvania:  0.7%
Florida:  1.2%

Three of those four (MI, PA, WI) hadn't voted for a Republican in a presidential election since 1988 when Michigan and Pennsylvania went for Bush, Sr.  The last time Wisconsin was won by a Republican, it was Reagan in 1984.  Florida was won by Obama the previous two election cycles.  Anyone trying to make predictions in volatile and razor thin polls prior to this past election would have been totally and reasonably justified in believing Hillary would pull at least MI, PA and WI out.

So whether we're discussing national popular vote or state polls, your gnat straining, disingenuous framing of the question about "who got it right" fails when examined by anyone who engages their brain and has even a college 101 level understanding of statistics and polling.  Just stop.  This is why people don't take you more seriously.

Good grief. Had I wanted or needed a polling theory lesson I would have asked for one. Please note I didn't.

Look, polling was a colossal failure in the 2016 election from a simple right/wrong standpoint. You don't have to like it and you can frame it however you feel necessary. I can post 100 stories from the days after the election stating the same colossal failure. 

That you and others want to talk about how close the election was is great. It is true, the election was close. Nothing like a moral victory.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

43 minutes ago, homersapien said:

78 obviously has a problem with understanding what is meant by "margin of error".

Apparently, he thinks polls (or the results of any statistical sample) present a definitive outcome given a dichotomous choice.

 

78 wasn't speaking to margins. That was Ben.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The greater question is why he thinks this is important or even meaningful. 

Care to tell us 78?

Do you recall the OP? LOL. Damn train. It is just a conversation homes. Don't overthink it.

[homersapien 11,453]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

78 wasn't speaking to margins. That was Ben.

Exactly.  And it went right over your head.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Good grief. Had I wanted or needed a polling theory lesson I would have asked for one. Please note I didn't.

Look, polling was a colossal failure in the 2016 election from a simple right/wrong standpoint.

That's the point that keeps making you look dumb.  It wasn't even wrong from that standpoint.  It called a popular vote win for Clinton (which is what you linked to to prove your point at Real Clear Politics, and is the only thing a national poll can measure) and Clinton won the popular vote.  

 

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

You don't have to like it and you can frame it however you feel necessary. I can post 100 stories from the days after the election stating the same colossal failure. 

That you and others want to talk about how close the election was is great. It is true, the election was close. Nothing like a moral victory.

You're embarrassing yourself.  Again.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

35 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Your emphasis on which polls were "right" is where you're missing. All polls are wrong, but some are more wrong then others. The real question should be "were the polls more wrong than usual?" From a statistical standpoint, the answer is "not necessarily."

Hundreds of publications in the days following the election stated emphatically how wrong the polls were. I am quite confident they were not talking about margin of error. 

Again, that is all I tried to say and you lead us down this rabbit trail. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's the point that keeps making you look dumb.  It wasn't even wrong from that standpoint.  It called a popular vote win for Clinton (which is what you linked to to prove your point at Real Clear Politics, and is the only thing a national poll can measure) and Clinton won the popular vote.  

 

You're embarrassing yourself.  Again.

Whatever.

Most polls predicted Clinton would be our president. She isn't and they were admittedly wrong. 

Why you and others cannot admit that is beyond me.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Whatever.

Most polls predicted Clinton would be our president. She isn't and they were admittedly wrong. 

Why you and others cannot admit that is beyond me.

It is beyond the capability for some here to ever admit they are wrong or can even accept a difference of opinion.

 

[AUDub 11,184]

10 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Hundreds of publications in the days following the election stated emphatically how wrong the polls were. I am quite confident they were not talking about margin of error. 

Again, that is all I tried to say and you lead us down this rabbit trail. 

Because they don't understand the fact that every poll, every prediction based upon it, is probabilistic.

Every poll has error, some from statistical noise and some from factors more difficult to quantify, non-responses or liars.

The point is, the polls can still be trusted (to a certain degree, of course). If 2016 altered that perception, they probably didn't understand the nature of polling to begin with. They were actually more accurate than they were in 2012.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

27 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Hundreds of publications in the days following the election stated emphatically how wrong the polls were. I am quite confident they were not talking about margin of error. 

Again, that is all I tried to say and you lead us down this rabbit trail. 

Ok, so let's look at how wrong they were.  I'll use the link you provided:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/senate/al/alabama_senate_special_election_moore_vs_jones-6271.html

We'll just take a look at the polls within 2 days of the election and I'll only use the last one posted for each pollster.  I"ll also only look at the ones that had all four candidates in the poll as that's a more accurate measure than just forcing a choice between the Republican and the Democrat.

As a reminder, Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% and that is what all of the polls you linked to measure.

IBD/TIPP:  Trump +2, 

LA Times/USC:  Trump +3, 

Bloomberg:  Clinton +3,

CBS News:  Clinton +4

FOX News:  Clinton +4

Reuters/Ipsos:  Clinton +3

ABC/WaPo:  Clinton +4

Monmouth:  Clinton +6

Economist/YouGov:  Clinton +4

Rasmussen:  Clinton +2

NBC News:  Clinton +6

Gravis:  Clinton +4  

Quinnipiac:  Clinton +1

Remington Research:  Trump +3

 

So help me out here.  Even straight up, with no margin of error, 11 of the final 14 polls predicted a Clinton victory in the national vote and thus, by your chosen measuring stick, were right.  Most of those same polls were within their own stated margin of error, so even by a more stringent measure, they were still right. 

Even a relatively conservative friendly Rasmussen Reports poll had Clinton winning by 2 and they hit it almost square on the nose.  

So what exactly are you trying to prove, because almost all of the national polls actually got it right.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

It is beyond the capability for some here to ever admit they are wrong or can even accept a difference of opinion.

 

Polls were wrong, publications wrong, media wrong, experts wrong, etc.  Were some close? Sure, but who cares for that loser mentality? In the words of your president, "I like winning."

[AUDub 11,184]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

It is beyond the capability for some here to ever admit they are wrong or can even accept a difference of opinion.

 

We aren't debating opinion. We are debating fact.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Whatever.

Most polls predicted Clinton would be our president. She isn't and they were admittedly wrong. 

Why you and others cannot admit that is beyond me.

I'm using your own argument and your own provided link to show you that what you argued earlier simply isn't true.  Do you wish to move the goalposts now?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

15 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Because they don't understand the fact that every poll, every prediction based upon it, is probabilistic.

Every poll has error, some from statistical noise and some from factors more difficult to quantify, non-responses or liars.

The point is, the polls can still be trusted (to a certain degree, of course). If 2016 altered that perception, they probably didn't understand the nature of polling to begin with. They were actually more accurate than they were in 2012.

I don't think they were interested in polling theory either Ben. Why? Because they understood it and even with that understanding they predicted a Clinton victory. Something tells me you will disagree with all of them just as you have me. Amright?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

8 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

We aren't debating opinion. We are debating fact.

That's just your OPINION. 

And besides, what about Hillary?  

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's just your OPINION. 

And besides, what about Hillary?  

Hillary? She is our president. She won! 

[AUDub 11,184]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

That's just your OPINION. 

And besides, what about Hillary?  

Reptilian shapeshifter!

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

This forum is like auditing a really good psychology course.

Trump supporters desperately grasp any excuse to defy what they perceive as convention or the establishment.  They direct inchoate anger toward the "system" because they feel they are victims of that system. 

They are drawn to Trump because he personifies opposition to the currrent establishment.  Never mind that supporting him is against their own interest.  Never mind that Trump would institute a new plutocratic establishment that would victimize them even more than the existing one.

That is why it is so important the polls must be WRONG!  The polls represent the existing establishment.  It's critical they be WRONG!   Any technical explanation of why they really weren't wrong is simply unacceptable. 

What losers.  It's sad.  

A loser try's to portray the election as a Clinton victory. And that is sad. 

[homersapien 11,453]

22 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Polls were wrong, publications wrong, media wrong, experts wrong, etc.  Were some close? Sure, but who cares for that loser mentality? In the words of your president, "I like winning."

This forum is like auditing a really good psychology course.

Trump supporters desperately grasp any excuse to defy what they perceive as convention or the establishment.  They direct inchoate anger toward the "system" because they feel they are victims of that system. 

They are drawn to Trump because he personifies opposition to the currrent establishment.  Never mind that supporting him is against their own interest.  Never mind that Trump would institute a new plutocratic establishment that would victimize them even more than the existing one.

That is why it is so important the polls must be WRONG!  The polls represent the existing establishment.  It's critical they be WRONG!   Any technical explanation of why they really weren't wrong is simply unacceptable. 

What losers.  It's sad.  

[homersapien 11,453]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

A loser try's to portray the election as a Clinton victory. And that is sad. 

No, what's sad is someone who refuses to admit Clinton won the popular vote - just as the polls predicted.

[AUDub 11,184]

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I don't think they were interested in polling theory either Ben. Why?

Because it's the media and they're trying to sell papers, or, *gasp*, get stuff wrong!

Quote

Because they understood it and even with that understanding they predicted a Clinton victory.

Some were dumbfounded and looked deeper to see where they screwed up their predictive model, some had their head too far up their own asses to know they should be, some were (rightfully) satisfied with their model's performance.

Quote

Something tells me you will disagree all of them just as you have me. Amright?

Because that's the way the data pointed. Make no mistake about it. Trump had a good chance, better than most models predicted, but what happened was still an upset. I think Silver was on the money.

[homersapien 11,453]

17 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Hillary? She is our president. She won! 

Actually she did win the popular vote.  (That means she got more votes than Trump did.)

Unfortunately, due to our archaic system, she failed to win the electoral college.

Of course, Trump can't even admit he lost the popular vote.  I am somewhat surprised you aren't joining him in that belief.  

[TitanTiger 20,511]

@AUFAN78, now you're just flat out lying.  You can dish out facepalms like some blithering idiot if you want, but you made an argument, it has been shown to be wrong, and now you want to act as if you said something else.  But just as a reminder, here are your posts where you started in on the inaccuracy of the polling:

You were the one who questioned the accuracy of the polls.  Then when people tried to go into things that actually matter to educated people who understand polling and statistics, YOU were the one who limited it to a "simple right/wrong" answer.  YOU were the one who linked to national polls as your "proof."  YOU were the one who said "Look, polling was a colossal failure in the 2016 election from a simple right/wrong standpoint."

So forgetting margin of error, statistical noise, and everything else, I showed you that 11 of the 14 final polls had Clinton winning the popular vote.  All of that came from the link YOU provided.  Clinton won the popular vote.  Had you wanted to argue about electoral college predictions, then you should have made THAT argument.  Maybe you'd be right.

You're wrong.  Be a man and admit it.  Stop lying.