Originally posted by @freakykbhPre-election polls taken just before the election didn't predict a "landslide" victory at all. They predicted a close race and did so accurately.
Better question: how did they get it so wrong for so long that all of the reports had Hillary winning by a landslide?
Don't feign a short memory.
Originally posted by @sonhouseSadly, you are a victim of the same talking point that Freaky has fallen for. Pollsters weren't surprised at all - they predicted a close race and got a close result.
It just shows some people poll one thing but do another. No surprise there. Pollsters were surprised however. You poll 'I am democrat' but vote republican, polls beforehand can't possibly take that kind of thing into account so they just report what the data says.
There was the case of 'Dewey Wins!" printed in newspapers before the election was finished, egg on face time at the Chicago daily Tribune in 1948.
Big surprise. Polls can be wrong.
Obviously, polling techniques anno 2018 are better than those in 1948 - and indeed, we are able to accurately measure what percentage of climate scientists agree that global warming is largely man-made.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraOh.
Pre-election polls taken just before the election didn't predict a "landslide" victory at all. They predicted a close race and did so accurately.
Then I guess I couldn't be talking about those results, could I?
Have you forgotten the polls used by the entire media?
The ones which called it nearly 100% for Hillary, that Trump had nearly zero chance of winning.
Did I imagine those reports?
Is that what you're claiming?
Originally posted by @freakykbhYes, it appears you are imagining those polls, or at least did not understand them.
Oh.
Then I guess I couldn't be talking about those results, could I?
Have you forgotten the polls used by the entire media?
The ones which called it nearly 100% for Hillary, that Trump had nearly zero chance of winning.
Did I imagine those reports?
Is that what you're claiming?
Here are the pre-election polls, which average to give Clinton a 3.3% lead in the popular vote, an error of only 1.2 percentage point compared to the final result.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
2 edits
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraBecause it was a close election. Did election polls predict the result? Were the polls done by email?
How did election polls get so close to predicting the result of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections while polling far fewer than 29% of the electorate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)
Why was the Iowa caucus not as close?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2016
Polling climate scientists is more like polling parliament before a vote. There are much less people in parliament than the whole population similarly to climate scientists. How does polling work in the UK? Do they poll parliament? You are also ignoring the factor of omitting the "indifferent". Indifferent people may not vote and pre-election polls do not weed those out. That is why exit polls are more accurate.
Polls in the USA are usually done to people who have already voted. That is different than an email before the election. It is possible that a lot of people received the emails but did not see them or maybe they ended up in the spam folder. Then there are the 1000 climate scientists who did not even receive the email. A simple typo of the email address could cause that. How do you know the person sending the emails didn't purposely get sloppy with the known skeptic climate scientists? I also am skeptical of the way they selected the names of climate scientists. They did it using an internet search engine. How many climate scientists were omitted from the list because of that I wonder. That is also subject to possible selection bias. Was that selection process monitored by a skeptic to prevent that?
Polls are not all equal and there is no way to know how accurate the polling of climate scientists is until you get an answer from all of them. After all, there are no elections to compare them to. How do you test the accuracy of the poll results? You can't unless you do a poll like the consensus bureau does. Why not do that? Are you fearful of what the results would be?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNo poll was required to know it would be a close election. I live in the USA and I predicted a close election at least 1 month before hand.
What?
Originally posted by @metal-brainWait... are you saying those poll numbers are made up?
No poll was required to know it would be a close election. I live in the USA and I predicted a close election at least 1 month before hand.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraGood God, that's a hell of a disconnect you've got going there.
Yes, it appears you are imagining those polls, or at least did not understand them.
Here are the pre-election polls, which average to give Clinton a 3.3% lead in the popular vote, an error of only 1.2 percentage point compared to the final result.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
Not only was the media calling it a landslide for months leading up to the election, not only was the media shocked beyond belief that the results were coming in complete contradiction to their prognostications, there was considerable hand-wringing afterwards specifically about how wrong the media was throughout the entire process.
It was all over the internet how COMPLETELY WRONG the media had it, start to finish.
And you expect anyone now to believe you are unaware of the events as they unfolded?
Get the hell out of here with your revisionist peddling, jackass.
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhWhy don't YOU get the hell out of here with your treasonous lies about NASA landing on the moon and the pathetic theory about Earth being flat (while of course it is obvious every other planet, moon and sun are clearly round)
Good God, that's a hell of a disconnect you've got going there.
Not only was the media calling it a landslide for months leading up to the election, not only was the media shocked beyond belief that the results were coming in complete contradiction to their prognostications, there was considerable hand-wringing afterwards specifically about how wrong the ...[text shortened]... he events as they unfolded?
Get the hell out of here with your revisionist peddling, jackass.
Originally posted by @sonhouseSay!
Why don't YOU get the hell out of here with your treasonous lies about NASA landing on the moon and the pathetic theory about Earth being flat (while of course it is obvious every other planet, moon and sun are clearly round)
That's some great crossover you tryin' fella!
I'll stay out of this one with my flat Earth hogwash.
Thanks.
This one doesn't really involve flat Earth (as far as I can see, and that's a long way on this plane) but instead, KN attempting to revise history.
Originally posted by @freakykbhALL you are about is conspiracy theory, they are your religion. So take it to spiritual spanky.
Say!
That's some great crossover you tryin' fella!
I'll stay out of this one with my flat Earth hogwash.
Thanks.
This one doesn't really involve flat Earth (as far as I can see, and that's a long way on this plane) but instead, KN attempting to revise history.
Originally posted by @freakykbhHey, don't talk about yourself like that.
Yep: you nailed it.
What a buffoon.