3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.