Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the strange things that still sticks around the back of my brain about 2016 polls is that were generally pretty close all around the country with the exception of three states -- Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
As I recall, and it has been awhile, Clinton's poll numbers in these states turned out to be fairly accurate, but Trump registered more votes than polls predicted.
Now why would that be?
Trump supporters insisted that Trump voters were sly when pollsters called them and didn't report accurately.
But why only in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania? Why not all over the country?
Trump supporters also crowed about how Trump got last minute information that if Trump held rallies in these states it would make a difference. Now what sort of information would that be?
And why would several last minute rallies turn the tide?
We moved on, as we should.
But the Trumpsters continual bleating about how you can't believe polls always makes me wonder why polls in these three states were off, when they were on all around the rest of the country.
Well, yeah. There's a million people in my city-metro and I've been called for jury duty 3 times in 37 years.
My parents have never been polled; I've actually never talked to anyone who has been polled that they've told me about.
Where did I say I was shocked?
Polls had HRC winning at >90% odds, lol.
But continue to put faith into polls.
And?
Even if the polls claimed 90%... 90% isn't 100%. And 10% isn't 0%. Have you never played a game of chance before?
Think of Monopoly. The average person has "gone to jail" by rolling 3 doubles in a row. The chances of that are 1 in 216. That's not 0%. And the outcome does happen.
The polls weren't "wrong." Don't be silly.
The polls I saw before the 2016 election was 72% - 28% Which gave Trump roughly the chance of flipping a coin and landing on heads twice. Frankly, not bad at all. Sure, you'd like better odds than that, but by not stretch of the imagine is 28% outside the realm of possible outcomes.
Those AREN'T polls.
Those are odds calculating betting games and models - not polls.
You said: "Polls had HRC winning at >90% odds, lol."
You don't seem to understand the difference.
Polls NEVER had Hillary at any particular chance of winning. Polls don't do that.
Just another low-information Trump supporter.
Those AREN'T polls.
Those are odds calculating betting games and models - not polls.
You said: "Polls had HRC winning at >90% odds, lol."
You don't seem to understand the difference.
Polls NEVER had Hillary at any particular chance of winning. Polls don't do that.
Just another low-information Trump supporter.
Ken
Mmkay whatever you say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
