3 ms·

It might have looked like a total landslide to you, but it wasn't. He won the electoral college, she won the popular vote. The polls had it as a close election

by pg314 10y ago

It might have looked like a total landslide to you, but it wasn't. He won the electoral college, she won the popular vote. The polls had it as a close election and they were off by a couple of percent.

pcunite 10y ago
When I went to view CNN's analysis the day of the election, it was reporting (on their website) a 90% chance Hillary would win.
- dpark 10y ago
  That's a prediction, not the polls. The polls indicated about a 3-4% preference for Hillary at the national level. She ended up with a 1-2% preference, so the polls were at least as accurate as in the past (nationally at least). The fact that CNN interpreted the data poorly doesn't mean the data was bad. FiveThirtyEight stated repeatedly that Clinton's lead was not insurmountable and the a typical polling error could easily flip it to Trump.
  - masonic 10y ago
    She ended up with a 1-2% preference You are off by an order of magnitude there. As of Wednesday afternoon, the actual popular vote difference was less than 0.17% of votes cast.
    - justinschuh 10y ago
      No, all we have right now are projections, which put Clinton at ~2% lead in the popular vote. We won't have final vote counts until probably December, because many millions of outstanding votes are still uncounted. The same thing happens every presidential cycle. Counts come in much slower for populous states with large volumes of absentee, provisional, and mail-in ballots. Clinton is going to win these votes by something like a 2:1 margin.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Looks like you're right according to the Wikipedia total. Last I looked it was expected she'd end up with a 1-2% lead once all the West Coast votes were counted. e.g. The NYT is still showing an estimated 1.2% lead for Clinton in the popular vote. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president
masonic 10y ago
They were off by more than a percentage point. The NYT's vote differential reported Tuesday afternoon was 1.2%; the actual was less than one-seventh of that.

by pg314 10y ago

pcunite 10y ago

When I went to view CNN's analysis the day of the election, it was reporting (on their website) a 90% chance Hillary would win.

dpark 10y ago
That's a prediction, not the polls. The polls indicated about a 3-4% preference for Hillary at the national level. She ended up with a 1-2% preference, so the polls were at least as accurate as in the past (nationally at least). The fact that CNN interpreted the data poorly doesn't mean the data was bad. FiveThirtyEight stated repeatedly that Clinton's lead was not insurmountable and the a typical polling error could easily flip it to Trump.
- masonic 10y ago
  She ended up with a 1-2% preference You are off by an order of magnitude there. As of Wednesday afternoon, the actual popular vote difference was less than 0.17% of votes cast.
  - justinschuh 10y ago
    No, all we have right now are projections, which put Clinton at ~2% lead in the popular vote. We won't have final vote counts until probably December, because many millions of outstanding votes are still uncounted. The same thing happens every presidential cycle. Counts come in much slower for populous states with large volumes of absentee, provisional, and mail-in ballots. Clinton is going to win these votes by something like a 2:1 margin.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Looks like you're right according to the Wikipedia total. Last I looked it was expected she'd end up with a 1-2% lead once all the West Coast votes were counted. e.g. The NYT is still showing an estimated 1.2% lead for Clinton in the popular vote. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

masonic 10y ago

They were off by more than a percentage point. The NYT's vote differential reported Tuesday afternoon was 1.2%; the actual was less than one-seventh of that.