Originally posted by @kazetnagorraBut they didn't. No one who knows an iota about polling and/or statistics will expect that pollsters get to within one percentage point in an election poll.
But they didn't. No one who knows an iota about polling and/or statistics will expect that pollsters get to within one percentage point in an election poll.
But hey, keep on googling and copy-pasting. Perhaps you can somehow Google away the 1.2 percentage point difference and magically make it a large discrepancy?
I guess those who actually run the polling don't know the first thing about polling and/or statistics, because they--- along with everyone else but you--- are offering excuses for why they got it wrong.
But hey, keep on googling and copy-pasting. Perhaps you can somehow Google away the 1.2 percentage point difference and magically make it a large discrepancy?
I'm merely offering links which support what everyone else knows: the pollsters got it wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhThis conversation is bizarre.
I guess those who actually run the polling don't know the first thing about polling and/or statistics, because they--- along with everyone else but you--- are offering excuses for why they got it wrong.
If a bus was running 2 minutes late, y'all would emphatically berate the bus driver that the schedule was WRONG!!!!!! THE DRIVER CANNOT DRIVE!
Do they not teach statistics in school anymore?
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou may have missed the bus.
This conversation is bizarre.
If a bus was running 2 minutes late, y'all would emphatically berate the bus driver that the schedule was [b] WRONG!!!!!! THE DRIVER CANNOT DRIVE!
Do they not teach statistics in school anymore?[/b]
This is about stats, but not in a useful way.
KN has been laboring to use the efficacy of stats in the 2016 election to make a case for a stat-dependent argument for climate change.
Odd place to set camp, since the 2016 election was such a boondoggle to pollsters, the industry felt forced to circle the wagons and present anything to exonerate the deplorable results.
Were the results accurate from a historical perspective?
Depends on what is considered accurate.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the public record shows that EVERYONE--- including Trump's own pollsters--- were shocked at the outcome.
Shocked because the pollsters had it wrong--- by their own admission.
2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhUmm. That's what stats are for.
Depends on what is considered accurate.
Your argument is that the bus was late because the schedule was wrong.
Statistics assume that reality is different.
Originally posted by @wildgrassAre you reading what the pollsters said?
Umm. That's what stats are for.
Your argument is that the bus was late because the schedule was wrong.
Statistics assume that reality is different.
They're saying specifically that they were wrong, thus the reports.
If the bus was late--- and, according to them, it was--- their schedule was wrong.
It doesn't matter what I say: they said it themselves.
Originally posted by @freakykbhAgain, it doesn't matter what anyone involving in polling says. What matters is what the polls say. And the polls (specifically, an aggregate thereof) said that Clinton would win the popular vote by 3.3%, while she won it by 2.1%. No one who knows anything about polling expects polls will do much better than that sort of margin of error. You can find a million people who claimed that the polls were wrong, but none of these facts will change.
Are you reading what the pollsters said?
They're saying specifically that they were wrong, thus the reports.
If the bus was late--- and, according to them, it was--- their schedule was wrong.
It doesn't matter what I say: they said it themselves.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSo even the experts are wrong about being wrong.
Again, it doesn't matter what anyone involving in polling says. What matters is what the polls say. And the polls (specifically, an aggregate thereof) said that Clinton would win the popular vote by 3.3%, while she won it by 2.1%. No one who knows anything about polling expects polls will do much better than that sort of margin of error. You can find a million people who claimed that the polls were wrong, but none of these facts will change.
Maybe you should get ahold of the folks who run the polling organizations and let them know.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYour point makes no sense. Iowa was the first indicator. Trump beat Hillary by nearly 10%.
Your point makes no sense, since the polls don't assume anything about the outcome, they just ask people who they will vote for. If anything, the intuitive prediction would be that Clinton would be the heavy favourite to win pitted against a drooling imbecile, but the polls showed that this intuition was wrong.
Iowa better represents the 29% (actually less than that) of climate scientists in the study you posted and wildgrass before you in another thread. The study was done as cheaply as possible knowing the response rate would be poor. Having Iowa vote and stopping there is also cheaper.
You want to compare it to the expensive route denied to a better study of AGW consensus. You can't have it both ways. I think partisan creatures like you want to avoid Iowa like the plague because Trump won by nearly 10% over Hillary. You hate to talk about it, right?
Originally posted by @metal-brainFrom what I've seen from the explanations thus far, nothing matters until the stats support a particular viewpoint.
Your point makes no sense. Iowa was the first indicator. Trump beat Hillary by nearly 10%.
Iowa better represents the 29% (actually less than that) of climate scientists in the study you posted and wildgrass before you in another thread. The study was done as cheaply as possible knowing the response rate would be poor. Having Iowa vote and stopping ...[text shortened]... like the plague because Trump won by nearly 10% over Hillary. You hate to talk about it, right?
Originally posted by @freakykbhSo why don't you research the stats that would support your flat Earth theory?
From what I've seen from the explanations thus far, nothing matters until the stats support a particular viewpoint.
Originally posted by @humyStop, you two!
these 'stats' must be of all those thousands of ships reported to have fallen off the edge of the Earth they for some mysterious reason don't tell us about.
I don't know that my fragile psyche can take very much of your withering incisive wits.
Shred, shred, shred: I'm seeing my position reduced to rubble in front of me with nary a place for refuge.
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou've been given stat upon stat but you end up waving them away like an old man at a deli sending the soup back to the kitchen in favor of your moon landing fantasy.
So why don't you research the stats that would support your flat Earth theory?
You're a traitor to your country.
Originally posted by @freakykbhYes, every "expert" who claims that the polls were off by a wide margin is wrong.
So even the experts are wrong about being wrong.
Maybe you should get ahold of the folks who run the polling organizations and let them know.
Why are they wrong? Because we can look up what the polls said, and their prediction was close to the final result. What's so difficult to understand about this?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhat is so difficult to understand about this?
Yes, every "expert" who claims that the polls were off by a wide margin is wrong.
Why are they wrong? Because we can look up what the polls said, and their prediction was close to the final result. What's so difficult to understand about this?
Ask yourself, PhD.
The polling organizations--- where it is and can be presumed to be chock full of actual, real-life experts on stats--- acknowledged the need for better polling practices back in 2006 (apparently unheeded because... ) and then again in 2016.
If they were as comfortable with the results as you seem to be, why would they put so much time and effort into presenting how, where and why they got it wrong?
For every solitary tree you can find to hang your claim of 'not that bad at all' on, there is a forest of evidence which claims and shows that it was, indeed, all that bad.
You're kinda like the kid who claims the sun rises in the west, on the basis that where it rises for you is west for someone east of your location.
A contrarian idiot, in other words.