4 ms·

Incorrectly forecasting an election result (where polls ended up having substantial errors) is hardly "fake" news.

rdtsc 10y ago
The fake part comes into play if you think they lied and pushed the wrong results, but presented them as "scientific". Note it was not just a small mistake. They presented Hillary having a massive landslide, and instead she delivered the worst Democratic performance in 20 years. Something doesn't add up...
- morgante 10y ago
  Frankly, this is an incredibly stupid argument and I'm sick of hearing it. Incorrectly forecasting the future is a far cry from incorrectly reporting facts. Nobody said it was a fact that Clinton would win. Where do you think they "lied?" Even simple poll averages showed Hillary was ahead. I'm willing to admit that they overestimated the chances of a Clinton victory. Nate Silver's 60% was a lot more realistic than the 90% the NYT was pushing. But having a poor prediction model is a lot different than falsely reporting the past. More importantly, it's totally incoherent. If the MSM was tilting their model to try to get Hillary elected, the worst thing they could do would be to present it as a sure thing (depressing turnout). Also, for the record, Clinton won the popular vote. So the polls got the popular vote percentage right. State polls were a lot more noisy and infrequent—it's not that surprising that there was a polling miss.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    > Frankly, this is an incredibly stupid argument and I'm sick of hearing it. Sorry. Didn't know you heard this before. Yeah the argument is misguided perhaps, but "incredibly stupid"? I don't know, I think you're being a bit harsh. > Where do you think they "lied?" They lied who they polled and how they fudged the results > Incorrectly forecasting the future is a far cry from incorrectly reporting facts. It is not far cry. This is one organization which has lost its credibility because it routinely lied and misconstrued facts, cheated during debates. I don't see as suspicious that they fudged the models to make her look good as "incredibly stupid", but again you have your opinion, so that's cool. > More importantly, it's totally incoherent. Sometimes maliciousness and coherency doesn't go together. Again, I would say it might be "mildly incoherent" but not "totally". You can just as well say they wanted her to look good to discourage anyone voting for the other candidate, which indeed jives with the rest of the rhetoric. > Also, for the record, Clinton won the popular vote. So the polls got the popular vote percentage right. What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying, she is a top experienced politician, lawyer, with a stellar team of experts, media behind her back, President, DNC, may large corporate donors and she didn't know that she had to win electoral college votes and just got a little confused? > State polls were a lot more noisy and infrequent—it's not that surprising that there was a polling miss. Somehow the "idiot" Trump managed to poll in the right states at the right time make Hillary deliver the worst Democratic election results in more than 20 years. If a dummy can do it, surely it was possible to poll properly.
    - morgante 10y ago
      > They lied who they polled and how they fudged the results Care to provide evidence that dozens of independent pollsters all colluded to fudge results? > It is not far cry. Yes it is. Do you really not see the difference between me saying "it's raining outside" (when it's not) and saying "I think it's going to rain tomorrow" (and it doesn't). > What does that have to do with anything? It has a lot to do with it. The primary input into most forecasting models was national polling data. And national polls ended up being correct: Clinton won the national popular vote. I'm not sure why you think Trump managed to poll better than the media. He spent months railing about how the election was rigged and he might not accept the result—if he was convinced he'd win, he wouldn't be wasting effort on that. You're not even mentioning betting markets. Do you think thousands of independent people bet money in order to incorrectly portray Clinton as having a lead? If you want to assert a global conspiracy to subvert reality, please bring data.
      - rdtsc 10y ago
        > "I think it's going to rain tomorrow" (and it doesn't). Not if your job is to predict rain and you somehow completely missed the that there's going to be a massive rain-storm. And you also happened to own a company which sells umbrellas on the street corner. > It has a lot to do with it. Well, ok, I take it back. It has a lot to do with them failing to predict it because they relied on the popular vote. > Care to provide evidence that dozens of independent pollsters all colluded to fudge results? I didn't say they colluded. They fudged their models by being in denial and wanting to see a certain candidate win. Someone doing it as a hobby is understandable. But when they are paid a pretty penny for it, then it borders into dishonesty. All actors doing the same thing doesn't imply it is a cabal and they all colluding. They simply have to have the same incentives. Surprisingly one of the polls that does measure enthusiasm the Daybreak poll from USC did predict a win for Trump http://cesrusc.org/election/ http://cesrusc.org/election/ > Do you think thousands of independent people bet money in order to incorrectly portray Clinton as having a lead? The probably took the cue from the media. > He spent months railing about how the election was rigged and he might not accept the result—if he was convinced he'd win, he wouldn't be wasting effort on that. But wasn't that a much better strategy, as overconfidence lead to people staying home. That idea is probably not novel to him or his team! We've all heard how dumb he is, yet somehow he knew exactly which states to go to, doing up to 6 speeches a day, in seemingly just at the right places. He got lucky a few times, maybe in primaries, but he seems to keep getting lucky consistently. > If you want to assert a global conspiracy to subvert reality, please bring data. Would you say reality was subverted already? We have a TV personality as a President. This is the stuff they put in comic books. Conspiracy here is called overconfidence, cockiness and complacency. That's the conspiracy. We can make fun of and call Trump supporters names as much as we want. But in the end Hillary had a very expensive gun (the media) and she went ahead and shot herself in the foot with it. I think that is one of the primary reason people didn't vote -- they saw the map with 400+ electoral college votes in her favor and 1% chance for Trump to win. But in the end it is those pesky KGB agents and Fake News that we are blaming... The more we blame them. The more Trump will keep winning.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Note that national polling was fine. It was the state polls that turned out to be hugely inaccurate. That doesn't mean they were "unscientific," but that they made some mistakes with their polling methods.
- rebuilder 10y ago
  Perhaps the electoral system is the missing variable you're looking for.
- sndean 10y ago
  > instead she delivered the worst Democratic performance in 20 years. Elections don't happen that often... so it's just a comparison against fellow losers Gore and Kerry. And Kerry lost by both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Bill Clinton and Obama, they had a better numbers. Dukakis only was worst and was early 90 or so. And that is despite her having such a well funded campaign.
    - hga 10y ago
      And anyone who knew Dukakis and Flyover country, as I did having been raised in the latter and then moving to Massachusetts for college in 1979, knew it was very likely Dukakis was going to lose. Oh, wow, here's a Wikipedia article worth looking at, "Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Pr...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  No mainstream prediction I saw predicted a massive Clinton landslide; most predicted a slightly larger popular vote victory than actually occurred. Some, though not the best regarded, gave a Clinton victory a very high probability, largely because they modelled state-level variability as independent rather than highly correlated, an error that 538 called out explicitly.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Most were also biased in her favor. That was the big learning experience for me in this election. She had an unprecedented support from media, unlike few other candidates. I think even Fox (the traditional Republican faux-news channel) didn't like him very much. Yeah I don't know the answer, what the mistake was. I'd want to know. I suspect some never responded or wanted to participate. Those who participated, said they'd vote for someone else but changed their mind. They used registered phone numbers and some people more consistently paid to have their number de-listed...
    - hga 10y ago
      Yes, from what I've read Fox was very anti-Trump, aside from a few of its figures who's contracts have not inspired. I mean, this election was used as an opportunity to mount a successful coup ousting its founder, who'd, BTW, announced a couple of years ago that the network was moving to the left anyway....
tomp 10y ago
Presenting the election result as 98% certainty is either fake or insanity (for context, that would mean (on average) only 1 wrong prediction in 200 years of US presidential elections). Edit: admittedly, that was Huffington Post, hardly a standard for good journalism. E.g. NYT had 80%, 1 wrong in 20 years, which is still quite optimistic IMO.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Isn't 98% certainty "1 wrong in 50 years", and 80% "1 wrong in 5 years"?
  - tomp 10y ago
    No, it's "1 wrong out of 50 events", but elections are only every 4 years.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      Ah, that's what I was missing. That said, regardless of how often these events are occurring, we shouldn't be all that surprised by a 1/5 event.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        Thinking further about this, I think framing it in years is highly misleading. If we imagine an event that occurs once every ten-thousand years, with even probability of two outcomes, then if I pick one of the two as my guess and I correctly assign a 50% probability, you can say "you're saying your guess will only be wrong, on average, once every twenty-thousand years!" That's technically true, but I'm clearly not making too bold a claim!
        tomp 10y ago
        Yeah I sometimes question the sensibility of even trying to assign probability to what are essentially one-time events. I prefer to think of it, the probability is either 0% or 100%, we just don't know it yet!

rdtsc 10y ago

The fake part comes into play if you think they lied and pushed the wrong results, but presented them as "scientific". Note it was not just a small mistake. They presented Hillary having a massive landslide, and instead she delivered the worst Democratic performance in 20 years. Something doesn't add up...

morgante 10y ago
Frankly, this is an incredibly stupid argument and I'm sick of hearing it. Incorrectly forecasting the future is a far cry from incorrectly reporting facts. Nobody said it was a fact that Clinton would win. Where do you think they "lied?" Even simple poll averages showed Hillary was ahead. I'm willing to admit that they overestimated the chances of a Clinton victory. Nate Silver's 60% was a lot more realistic than the 90% the NYT was pushing. But having a poor prediction model is a lot different than falsely reporting the past. More importantly, it's totally incoherent. If the MSM was tilting their model to try to get Hillary elected, the worst thing they could do would be to present it as a sure thing (depressing turnout). Also, for the record, Clinton won the popular vote. So the polls got the popular vote percentage right. State polls were a lot more noisy and infrequent—it's not that surprising that there was a polling miss.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > Frankly, this is an incredibly stupid argument and I'm sick of hearing it. Sorry. Didn't know you heard this before. Yeah the argument is misguided perhaps, but "incredibly stupid"? I don't know, I think you're being a bit harsh. > Where do you think they "lied?" They lied who they polled and how they fudged the results > Incorrectly forecasting the future is a far cry from incorrectly reporting facts. It is not far cry. This is one organization which has lost its credibility because it routinely lied and misconstrued facts, cheated during debates. I don't see as suspicious that they fudged the models to make her look good as "incredibly stupid", but again you have your opinion, so that's cool. > More importantly, it's totally incoherent. Sometimes maliciousness and coherency doesn't go together. Again, I would say it might be "mildly incoherent" but not "totally". You can just as well say they wanted her to look good to discourage anyone voting for the other candidate, which indeed jives with the rest of the rhetoric. > Also, for the record, Clinton won the popular vote. So the polls got the popular vote percentage right. What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying, she is a top experienced politician, lawyer, with a stellar team of experts, media behind her back, President, DNC, may large corporate donors and she didn't know that she had to win electoral college votes and just got a little confused? > State polls were a lot more noisy and infrequent—it's not that surprising that there was a polling miss. Somehow the "idiot" Trump managed to poll in the right states at the right time make Hillary deliver the worst Democratic election results in more than 20 years. If a dummy can do it, surely it was possible to poll properly.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > They lied who they polled and how they fudged the results Care to provide evidence that dozens of independent pollsters all colluded to fudge results? > It is not far cry. Yes it is. Do you really not see the difference between me saying "it's raining outside" (when it's not) and saying "I think it's going to rain tomorrow" (and it doesn't). > What does that have to do with anything? It has a lot to do with it. The primary input into most forecasting models was national polling data. And national polls ended up being correct: Clinton won the national popular vote. I'm not sure why you think Trump managed to poll better than the media. He spent months railing about how the election was rigged and he might not accept the result—if he was convinced he'd win, he wouldn't be wasting effort on that. You're not even mentioning betting markets. Do you think thousands of independent people bet money in order to incorrectly portray Clinton as having a lead? If you want to assert a global conspiracy to subvert reality, please bring data.
    - rdtsc 10y ago
      > "I think it's going to rain tomorrow" (and it doesn't). Not if your job is to predict rain and you somehow completely missed the that there's going to be a massive rain-storm. And you also happened to own a company which sells umbrellas on the street corner. > It has a lot to do with it. Well, ok, I take it back. It has a lot to do with them failing to predict it because they relied on the popular vote. > Care to provide evidence that dozens of independent pollsters all colluded to fudge results? I didn't say they colluded. They fudged their models by being in denial and wanting to see a certain candidate win. Someone doing it as a hobby is understandable. But when they are paid a pretty penny for it, then it borders into dishonesty. All actors doing the same thing doesn't imply it is a cabal and they all colluding. They simply have to have the same incentives. Surprisingly one of the polls that does measure enthusiasm the Daybreak poll from USC did predict a win for Trump http://cesrusc.org/election/ http://cesrusc.org/election/ > Do you think thousands of independent people bet money in order to incorrectly portray Clinton as having a lead? The probably took the cue from the media. > He spent months railing about how the election was rigged and he might not accept the result—if he was convinced he'd win, he wouldn't be wasting effort on that. But wasn't that a much better strategy, as overconfidence lead to people staying home. That idea is probably not novel to him or his team! We've all heard how dumb he is, yet somehow he knew exactly which states to go to, doing up to 6 speeches a day, in seemingly just at the right places. He got lucky a few times, maybe in primaries, but he seems to keep getting lucky consistently. > If you want to assert a global conspiracy to subvert reality, please bring data. Would you say reality was subverted already? We have a TV personality as a President. This is the stuff they put in comic books. Conspiracy here is called overconfidence, cockiness and complacency. That's the conspiracy. We can make fun of and call Trump supporters names as much as we want. But in the end Hillary had a very expensive gun (the media) and she went ahead and shot herself in the foot with it. I think that is one of the primary reason people didn't vote -- they saw the map with 400+ electoral college votes in her favor and 1% chance for Trump to win. But in the end it is those pesky KGB agents and Fake News that we are blaming... The more we blame them. The more Trump will keep winning.
enraged_camel 10y ago
Note that national polling was fine. It was the state polls that turned out to be hugely inaccurate. That doesn't mean they were "unscientific," but that they made some mistakes with their polling methods.
rebuilder 10y ago
Perhaps the electoral system is the missing variable you're looking for.
sndean 10y ago
> instead she delivered the worst Democratic performance in 20 years. Elections don't happen that often... so it's just a comparison against fellow losers Gore and Kerry. And Kerry lost by both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Bill Clinton and Obama, they had a better numbers. Dukakis only was worst and was early 90 or so. And that is despite her having such a well funded campaign.
  - hga 10y ago
    And anyone who knew Dukakis and Flyover country, as I did having been raised in the latter and then moving to Massachusetts for college in 1979, knew it was very likely Dukakis was going to lose. Oh, wow, here's a Wikipedia article worth looking at, "Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Pr...
dragonwriter 10y ago
No mainstream prediction I saw predicted a massive Clinton landslide; most predicted a slightly larger popular vote victory than actually occurred. Some, though not the best regarded, gave a Clinton victory a very high probability, largely because they modelled state-level variability as independent rather than highly correlated, an error that 538 called out explicitly.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Most were also biased in her favor. That was the big learning experience for me in this election. She had an unprecedented support from media, unlike few other candidates. I think even Fox (the traditional Republican faux-news channel) didn't like him very much. Yeah I don't know the answer, what the mistake was. I'd want to know. I suspect some never responded or wanted to participate. Those who participated, said they'd vote for someone else but changed their mind. They used registered phone numbers and some people more consistently paid to have their number de-listed...
  - hga 10y ago
    Yes, from what I've read Fox was very anti-Trump, aside from a few of its figures who's contracts have not inspired. I mean, this election was used as an opportunity to mount a successful coup ousting its founder, who'd, BTW, announced a couple of years ago that the network was moving to the left anyway....

tomp 10y ago

Presenting the election result as 98% certainty is either fake or insanity (for context, that would mean (on average) only 1 wrong prediction in 200 years of US presidential elections). Edit: admittedly, that was Huffington Post, hardly a standard for good journalism. E.g. NYT had 80%, 1 wrong in 20 years, which is still quite optimistic IMO.

dllthomas 10y ago
Isn't 98% certainty "1 wrong in 50 years", and 80% "1 wrong in 5 years"?
- tomp 10y ago
  No, it's "1 wrong out of 50 events", but elections are only every 4 years.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    Ah, that's what I was missing. That said, regardless of how often these events are occurring, we shouldn't be all that surprised by a 1/5 event.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      Thinking further about this, I think framing it in years is highly misleading. If we imagine an event that occurs once every ten-thousand years, with even probability of two outcomes, then if I pick one of the two as my guess and I correctly assign a 50% probability, you can say "you're saying your guess will only be wrong, on average, once every twenty-thousand years!" That's technically true, but I'm clearly not making too bold a claim!
      - tomp 10y ago
        Yeah I sometimes question the sensibility of even trying to assign probability to what are essentially one-time events. I prefer to think of it, the probability is either 0% or 100%, we just don't know it yet!