Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
This has been explained ad nauseum but we'll try again. The polls were largely bang-on at the national level in 2016. It was at the state level where Trump outperformed his polls, but it was also still within the MoE. He outperformed his polls by about 2% at the state level. Even if he outperforms them by that level again this year, it's still a landslide loss.
|
The polls had Clintons chances of winning Michigan at 78.9%, Wisconsin at 83.5%, Pennsylvania at 77% even by the day of the election
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
And on the point of margin of error, that's wrong too.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...s-wrong-2017-5
Quote:
Reminiscing on what went wrong just days after the November election, Patrick Murray, the head of Monmouth University's polling institute, a firm that conducts a number of state polls, told Business Insider "polls might not be capable of predicting elections."
Murray's final Pennsylvania poll showed Clinton with a 4-point lead with a 4.9-point margin of error, which still was not big enough to capture the margin — 1.2 points — by which Trump would win the state.
|
Quote:
|
His theory for what happened at the time: "Non-response among a major core of Trump voters."
|
Again, polls are garbage because they only show what it wants to show and using outdated techniques that cater to a specific demographic versus the whole spectrum.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...crush-wildrose
Quote:
|
'We were wrong': Alberta Election pollsters red-faced as Tories crush Wildrose
|