2 ms·

> So why do you think the proposition that polls were systematically biased is so unserious? Two reasons. One, and the most obvious one is that the polls weren

by fryguy 10y ago

> So why do you think the proposition that polls were systematically biased is so unserious? Two reasons. One, and the most obvious one is that the polls weren't very far off. They had the average amount of polling error that there has been (according to what 538 said on their podcast). The polls indicated a 3-4 point national lead, and she ended up with a ~1 point national lead. The second is that polling agencies have their reputations and there hasn't been any indication from wikileaks that there was any tampering or attempted tampering.

seertaak 10y ago
I think we're pretty close to agreeing. I would agree, for example, to the statement that it is "unlikely" that the polls were systematically biased, for the reasons you've given. If I wanted to, I could of course pick holes in your reasons, but I think to first order you're probably right. However, please recall that the parent comment adopted an almost mocking tone (Seriously? Seriously?), and that's what I wanted to push back against. So: would you agree that the proposition of systematically biased is unlikely, while also agreeing that serious people could harbour doubts about the impartiality of said polls? It would seem to me to be in the interest of everyone (ironically, especially liberals, although it seems they haven't quite gotten the point yet) to seriously investigate these allegations in light of the revelations of Wikileaks, revelations which the mainstream media worked so hard to cover up and discredit.
Steel_Phoenix 10y ago
Assuming you were to put your foot on the scale a bit with the polling in order to demoralize the opposition, the only way you would be able to use that trick more than once would be to make sure to make sure that you quit doing it in the final days or weeks before the election. If the polling is far off from the results, you either get unwanted investigations or you lose credibility for future polling. Anyone with sufficient resources to influence something on this scale is likely playing a long game, and it's clear that the game is being played on some level. Look at the way the DNC started out with the bulk of the superdelegates for Hillary in order to give her an early credibility jump over the opposition, just in time to get actual credibility by winning Texas. Especially when someone is donating to a campaign, they want to donate to a winner.

by fryguy 10y ago

seertaak 10y ago

I think we're pretty close to agreeing. I would agree, for example, to the statement that it is "unlikely" that the polls were systematically biased, for the reasons you've given. If I wanted to, I could of course pick holes in your reasons, but I think to first order you're probably right. However, please recall that the parent comment adopted an almost mocking tone (Seriously? Seriously?), and that's what I wanted to push back against. So: would you agree that the proposition of systematically biased is unlikely, while also agreeing that serious people could harbour doubts about the impartiality of said polls? It would seem to me to be in the interest of everyone (ironically, especially liberals, although it seems they haven't quite gotten the point yet) to seriously investigate these allegations in light of the revelations of Wikileaks, revelations which the mainstream media worked so hard to cover up and discredit.

Steel_Phoenix 10y ago

Assuming you were to put your foot on the scale a bit with the polling in order to demoralize the opposition, the only way you would be able to use that trick more than once would be to make sure to make sure that you quit doing it in the final days or weeks before the election. If the polling is far off from the results, you either get unwanted investigations or you lose credibility for future polling. Anyone with sufficient resources to influence something on this scale is likely playing a long game, and it's clear that the game is being played on some level. Look at the way the DNC started out with the bulk of the superdelegates for Hillary in order to give her an early credibility jump over the opposition, just in time to get actual credibility by winning Texas. Especially when someone is donating to a campaign, they want to donate to a winner.