How wrong were the polls in 2016?

[AUDub 11,184]

Since 78 can’t let it go.

Hang on. Migrating the old convo here. Feel free to move your most recent post here, 78. We’ll go from there. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Since 78 can’t let it go.

Hang on. Migrating the old convo here. Feel free to move your most recent post here, 78. We’ll go from there. 

I can let it go or have further convo. Your call, but don't post nonsense in a current thread and expect my silence.

[AUDub 11,184]

So here's where we started. I'm not including Homer and Titan's arguments for the sake of brevity, but they were arguing from the same position as me. Here's the start of the argument, for corroboration.

On 12/11/2017 at 10:17 AM, AUFAN78 said:

After last years polling debacle, I have a hard time believing anyone would put faith in them. Insanity.

(For starters, note that his post solely regards the polls. This will be important later.)

On 12/11/2017 at 10:22 AM, AUDub said:

The polls actually didn't do terribly. FiveThirtyEight did a great job aggregating them, were quite bullish on Trump and got lambasted because their chances for a Trump win were high compared to others like the NYT and HuffPo. 

 

On 12/11/2017 at 10:30 AM, AUFAN78 said:

You can say that, but how many actually got it right? 

 

On 12/11/2017 at 10:36 AM, AUDub said:

You mean what percentage were within their margin of error? Turns out, practically all of them. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

 

On 12/11/2017 at 10:43 AM, AUFAN78 said:

This was not a trick question and it doesn't need a trick answer.

Let's try again. How many got it right?

 

On 12/11/2017 at 11:15 AM, AUDub said:

The answer is they didn't really get it that wrong. Nationally, the average was about C+4, and the final result was around C+2, which is well within the bounds of normal polling error.

What happened was that the polling error happened to be concentrated in EXACTLY the right places for Trump to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote by a substantial margin.

The big misses, and I emphasized this a page ago here:

On 12/11/2017 at 9:22 AM, Bigbens42 said:

Like the rustbelt, I don't think a lot of pollsters know how to properly poll this state 

were in the rust belt, as result of nobody really knowing how to poll those states.

The justification FiveThirtyEight gave for its high Trump win chances ended up being exactly what happened. The rust belt state errors were correlated, as FiveThirtyEight said they could be. It was a close election, and there was a moderately large polling error in a few states. It was not a historic polling miss.

 

On 12/11/2017 at 11:40 AM, 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.  

 

On 12/11/2017 at 11:45 AM, AUDub 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."

 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:11 PM, 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. 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.

(The above is a reply to Titan, but I feel it's important to include it, because here he is explicitly doubling down regarding the polls. Below is him picking it back up with me.)

On 12/11/2017 at 12:57 PM, 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. 

 

On 12/11/2017 at 1:12 PM, AUDub 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.

 

On 12/11/2017 at 1:23 PM, AUFAN78 said:

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?

 

On 12/11/2017 at 1:38 PM, AUDub said:

On 12/11/2017 at 1:23 PM, 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.

The above is when I first engaged in some low level snark. In my defense, I think I did well holding it back as long as I did. 

On 12/11/2017 at 1:53 PM, AUFAN78 said:

From the beginning I was speaking to the prediction from polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. that predicted a Clinton victory. She was not victorious. Can we agree on that? Or must you frame it to better suit you? 

And here's where the goalposts were moved and he weaseled. It went from the polls to polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. that predicted a Clinton victory.

[AUDub 11,184]

Refute my assertion that you weaseled in light of the quotes above. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Refute my assertion that you weaseled in light of the quotes above. 

No problem. You got it wrong from the start. You tried to to be a mind reader and inject your interpretation. Problem was and still is you aren't. 

No one can intelligently defend the fact that news organizations based their predictions from polling data. That data proved wrong. That was the truth when I first posted and it remains the truth at present.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

21 minutes ago, AUDub said:

And here's where the goalposts were moved and he weaseled. It went from the polls to polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. that predicted a Clinton victory.

Not so fast Batman. Read again. Preferably more clearly. 

 

 On 12/11/2017 at 12:11 PM, 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. 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.

[AUDub 11,184]

14 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

No problem. You got it wrong from the start. You tried to to be a mind reader and inject your interpretation. Problem was and still is you aren't. 

No one can intelligently defend the fact that news organizations based their predictions from polling data. That data proved wrong. That was the truth when I first posted and it remains the truth at present.

The problem, 78, is that you gave no indication of that. You’re correct that I am unable to read your mind. I can only read what you put down in print. I injected no interpretation. Even going back and reading with what you say you meant in mind, you give no cues here. You refer to the polls, and only the polls, repeatedly. Rather than say “what I REALLY meant,” you continued in poll vein for nearly two pages, after the point about the polls was thoroughly debunked, before you changed the parameters out of the blue and with no explanation other than “y’all are misinterpreting me!”

If that’s what you meant, you should have made that point at the start of the argument rather than doubling down, rather than make posts like

Quote

“...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.“

“...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. “

 

in the course of the argument. When you come back after we’ve spent two pages refuting a premise with “...what I REALLY meant,” it understandably falls flat.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The problem, 78, is that you gave no indication of that. You’re correct that I am unable to read your mind. I can only read what you put down in print. I injected no interpretation. Even going back and reading with what you say you meant in mind, you give no cues here. You refer to the polls, and only the polls, repeatedly. Rather than say “what I REALLY meant,” you continued in poll vein for nearly two pages, after the point about the polls was thoroughly debunked, before you changed the parameters out of the blue and with no explanation other than “y’all are misinterpreting me!”

If that’s what you meant, you should have made that point at the start of the argument rather than doubling down, rather than make posts like

 

 

We will visit further tomorrow. 

[AUDub 11,184]

6 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. 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.

Here’s the problem. Given the structure of that sentence, you’re using those stories to refute the polls. That doesn’t support your reframing of your argument.

The polls are wrong, I can post stories showing why! 

in the course of the argument is not

“From the beginning I was speaking to the prediction from polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. that predicted a Clinton victory.”

 

The problem, again, is that the media, like most, does not understand how polling actually works or how to look at the polls with a properly skeptical eye. Polls are wrong because polls are always wrong. No poll is ever right. The real question should be “were the polls more wrong than usual?” Anyone with even a base understanding of how statistics work, comparing it with past years, would immediately say “not necessarily.” Hell, they were more accurate than they were 6 years ago.

[AUDub 11,184]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

We will visit further tomorrow. 

Night, man.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Is it tomorrow yet? LOL. Back and ready to go! You know what I mean. Anyway............

First, my thoughts from the beginning were about how the polls led media to predict a Clinton victory. Maybe that wasn't discussed specifically early on, but I don't recall being questioned on the point of my statement. You and others assumed much. Words have different meanings. So I did not have to re frame the argument. I knew it from its inception as it was my assertion from the start. Maybe vague, but again never questioned specifically.

While basically ignored, I started talking about the media and election prediction relatively early on. Like the first page of this discussion! You guys stayed in your comfort lane albeit a point I wasn't making. Go figure. 

I admittedly played along for a while, throwing an occasional one liner while laughing, but with cause. I was enjoying the moment. What can I say? It's you guys. It was easy. Let em waller. IIWII.

Word.

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,453]

8 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Is it tomorrow yet? LOL. Back and ready to go! You know what I mean. Anyway............

First, my thoughts from the beginning were about how the polls led media to predict a Clinton victory. Maybe that wasn't discussed specifically early on, but I don't recall being questioned on the point of my statement. You and others assumed much. Words have different meanings. So I did not have to re frame the argument. I knew it from its inception as it was my assertion from the start. Maybe vague, but again never questioned specifically.

While basically ignored, I started talking about the media and election prediction relatively early on. Like the first page of this discussion! You guys stayed in your comfort lane albeit a point I wasn't making. Go figure. 

I admittedly played along for a while, throwing an occasional one liner while laughing, but with cause. I was enjoying the moment. What can I say? It's you guys. It was easy. Let em waller. IIWII.

Word.

 

 

 

 

Just face it.  You were sloppy in expressing your point and got called on the facts.  You then adjusted your argument according to the facts.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

52 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Just face it.  You were sloppy in expressing your point and got called on the facts.  You then adjusted your argument according to the facts.

Just face it, I gave clues early on but let you waller in some polling theory that had nothing to do with my point.  Then I rubbed your face in it for effect. 

Was it pleasurable? Sure, but not unexpected. That is why I am here. 

[homersapien 11,453]

32 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Just face it, I gave clues early on but let you waller in some polling theory that had nothing to do with my point.  Then I rubbed your face in it for effect. 

Was it pleasurable? Sure, but not unexpected. That is why I am here. 

You seek pleasure in strange ways.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You seek pleasure in strange ways.

Actually I did not seek it. It was handed on a silver platter. 

[AUDub 11,184]

55 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You seek pleasure in strange ways.

Some people like getting kicked in the nuts. 

[AUDub 11,184]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

First, my thoughts from the beginning were about how the polls led media to predict a Clinton victory. 

Maybe, but your posts didn’t indicate that. Your first posts were

”After last years polling debacle, I have a hard time believing anyone would put faith in them. Insanity.”

followed by

”You can say that, but how many actually got it right?”

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Maybe that wasn't discussed specifically early on, but I don't recall being questioned on the point of my statement.

The problem, 78, was that we argued with what you put down in print rather what you say you were thinking at the time. 

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You and others assumed much.

We assumed nothing, other than what you wrote down and proceeded to argue when challenged on it. If you’re going to present an argument, it’s your job to to present it with clarity, not alter it after two pages of dialogue. 

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Words have different meanings. So I did not have to re frame the argument.

They do, but even given the most charitable interpretation possible, you tried to weasel your way out of a bad one rather than rephrase. 

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I knew it from its inception as it was my assertion from the start. Maybe vague, but again never questioned specifically.

It’s not our job to read your mind. When you present an argument, it’s your job to make that assertion clear from that start. 

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

While basically ignored, I started talking about the media and election prediction relatively early on.

Like the first page of this discussion! You guys stayed in your comfort lane albeit a point I wasn't making. Go figure. 

In the context of your assertion of how they proved the polls failed. When you went ahead with your ham-handed attempt to reframe long after your original point had been savaged, you were called on it, and rightfully so. 

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I admittedly played along for a while, throwing an occasional one liner while laughing, but with cause. I was enjoying the moment. What can I say? It's you guys. It was easy. Let em waller. IIWII.

Word.

You laughed at nothing more than your own failure. You were owned, then you tried to weasel your way out of it. 

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

37 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Maybe, but your posts didn’t indicate that. Your first posts were

”After last years polling debacle, I have a hard time believing anyone would put faith in them. Insanity.”

followed by

”You can say that, but how many actually got it right?”

The problem, 78, was that we argued with what you put down in print rather what you say you were thinking at the time. 

We assumed nothing, other than what you wrote down and proceeded to argue when challenged on it. If you’re going to present an argument, it’s your job to to present it with clarity, not alter it after two pages of dialogue. 

They do, but even given the most charitable interpretation possible, you tried to weasel your way out of a bad one rather than rephrase. 

It’s not our job to read your mind. When you present an argument, it’s your job to make that assertion clear from that start. 

In the context of your assertion of how they proved the polls failed. When you went ahead with your ham-handed attempt to reframe long after your original point had been savaged, you were called on it, and rightfully so. 

You laughed at nothing more than your own failure. You were owned, then you tried to weasel your way out of it. 

 

 

There is no maybe. Polling data caused media to prematurely predict a Clinton victory.

I spoke to election predictions and media early on. You ignored it.

If you savaged anything, it was a point you made, not me.

I sit in a room of intelligent people daily. When unsure they don't speculate they seek clarity. Perhaps this reveals the problem?

Sorry, but I cannot help but laugh. As my linked content reveals, the media agreed with my perspective.

[homersapien 11,453]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Actually I did not seek it. It was handed on a silver platter. 

You find pleasure in strange ways.

But it could be worse I suppose.  For example, you could find pleasure in having a couple of Russian prostitutes pee on you. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You find pleasure in strange ways.

But it could be worse I suppose.  For example, you could find pleasure in having a couple of Russian prostitutes pee on you. 

I'll leave that to Trump. Simply not my thing homes.

[homersapien 11,453]

55 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Maybe, but your posts didn’t indicate that. Your first posts were

”After last years polling debacle, I have a hard time believing anyone would put faith in them. Insanity.”

followed by

”You can say that, but how many actually got it right?”

The problem, 78, was that we argued with what you put down in print rather what you say you were thinking at the time. 

We assumed nothing, other than what you wrote down and proceeded to argue when challenged on it. If you’re going to present an argument, it’s your job to to present it with clarity, not alter it after two pages of dialogue. 

They do, but even given the most charitable interpretation possible, you tried to weasel your way out of a bad one rather than rephrase. 

It’s not our job to read your mind. When you present an argument, it’s your job to make that assertion clear from that start. 

In the context of your assertion of how they proved the polls failed. When you went ahead with your ham-handed attempt to reframe long after your original point had been savaged, you were called on it, and rightfully so. 

You laughed at nothing more than your own failure. You were owned, then you tried to weasel your way out of it. 

 

 

It's hopeless dub.

There are two categories of people in this forum - those who are willing to own up to an error when presented with the literal evidence and those who recognize it's not a weakness to admit an obvious error; in fact it's a strength. 

Their infantile fear of being shown in error outweighs their own self-regard.  You'd think they would be hesitate to participate on a written forum.

It's fascinating, but in a sad way.  No wonder they are Trump supporters, they have so much in common.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

those who are willing to own up to an error when presented with the literal evidence and those who recognize it's not a weakness to admit an obvious error; in fact it's a strength. 

Their infantile fear of being shown in error outweighs their own self-regard. 

I sincerely hope you'll think long and hard on this. 

[homersapien 11,453]

10 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I sincerely hope you'll think long and hard on this. 

Are you trying to imply something?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Are you trying to imply something?

Preferably that you go back and read every word, not ignoring that which doesn't fit your agenda, but rather from the lens in which it was intended. Then decide. 

I am praying for clarity, but admittedly am skeptical. 

[homersapien 11,453]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Preferably that you go back and read every word, not ignoring that which doesn't fit your agenda, but rather from the lens in which it was intended. Then decide. 

I am praying for clarity, but admittedly am skeptical. 

As Ben has already said, we cannot discern what you intended to write beyond what you did write. 

My point is instead of doubling down on your mistake, why not backstep just a little, clarify what you actually intended to mean and correct your wording accordingly? 

Why dispute a literal transcript?  That's irrational.

Trust me, it's not painful at all to correct your wording to reflect what you really meant and apologize for the misunderstanding.  People will actually think more of you for it.