3 ms·

> Either they couldn't afford to pay their statisticans or they deliberately fudged them and lied. So it's only those two options? It's not possible that the p

> Either they couldn't afford to pay their statisticans or they deliberately fudged them and lied. So it's only those two options? It's not possible that the polling was just flawed or wrong but it's they can't pay them (implying they have shit statisticians) or they lied? Not a fan of most of the media but come on there are more options here. It was a tough election to predict. Bringing in two, fairly unpopular candidates is going to create some interesting results.

rdtsc 10y ago
> So it's only those two options? The implication was that they fudged their data to make a candidate look better. Clearly they have the money to pay for the poll and statisticians. The more I think about the more it is seems one of the reason for the loss was this overconfidence. News channels were often way too happy to put up a map with Hillary in the 400+ points and the whole map being blue. They believed that would just discourage those voting for Trump to show up. In their it was a terrible blunder (or win depending who you support), in the end more people who would have voted for the Democrats stayed home.
- hga 10y ago
  Overconfidence is certainly a story we're getting out of the Clinton campaign; WRT to the Rust Belt where she decisively lost the election: Bill's advice to put effort into was ridiculed. Russ Feingold, who was as far as I know honestly expected to win his election for Senator (note he'd just lost the seat 6 years earlier in the off-season 2010 Republican langslide), desperately asked for help towards the end of the campaign and was ignored. It's been reported that a computer system named Ada was driving pretty much all these sorts of decisions, and it said the Rust Belt was safe. And there are some other things I think I'm forgetting this early in the morning, anyway, just how wrong this was is demonstrated by how close Minnesota ended up. If Team Trump had realized the opportunity there earlier and put more resources into it, he might well have won it. That that Democratic (well, DFL) bastion was in play....

rdtsc 10y ago

> So it's only those two options? The implication was that they fudged their data to make a candidate look better. Clearly they have the money to pay for the poll and statisticians. The more I think about the more it is seems one of the reason for the loss was this overconfidence. News channels were often way too happy to put up a map with Hillary in the 400+ points and the whole map being blue. They believed that would just discourage those voting for Trump to show up. In their it was a terrible blunder (or win depending who you support), in the end more people who would have voted for the Democrats stayed home.

hga 10y ago
Overconfidence is certainly a story we're getting out of the Clinton campaign; WRT to the Rust Belt where she decisively lost the election: Bill's advice to put effort into was ridiculed. Russ Feingold, who was as far as I know honestly expected to win his election for Senator (note he'd just lost the seat 6 years earlier in the off-season 2010 Republican langslide), desperately asked for help towards the end of the campaign and was ignored. It's been reported that a computer system named Ada was driving pretty much all these sorts of decisions, and it said the Rust Belt was safe. And there are some other things I think I'm forgetting this early in the morning, anyway, just how wrong this was is demonstrated by how close Minnesota ended up. If Team Trump had realized the opportunity there earlier and put more resources into it, he might well have won it. That that Democratic (well, DFL) bastion was in play....