2 ms·

CNN and other "polls" were giving Clinton over 80% of chances she win. They all been proven fake. I literally delete CNN off of my Sling roster for being a fake

CNN and other "polls" were giving Clinton over 80% of chances she win. They all been proven fake. I literally delete CNN off of my Sling roster for being a fake news station. Thielf's owning Palantir only God knows what kind of real information of state of voters pre-election he was able to grasp.

grzm 10y ago
CNN and other "polls" were giving Clinton over 80% of chances she win. They all been proven fake. Proven fake how? Bad at predicting the end result? Sure. Misinterpreted? In a lot of cases, yes. Stats and predictions are not intuitive and widely misunderstood, and I certainly think that news outlets should do a better job using and explaining them. Using the 80% figure, that's a 1 in 5 chance of being wrong, which is what happened. This isn't to defend CNN by any stretch. I find the information density poor and not particularly subtle in its interpretation, and its website is annoying. But unless you have evidence of the numbers being made up out of whole cloth, throwing around "the polls were fake" is a gross misrepresentation. If you do have evidence that the numbers were made up, I'd love to see it. By all means, take CNN off of your list of trusted news sources. But please don't use fake polls as a reason for it.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  The problem with CNN is that they were actually right about the numbers and wrong about how to interpret them. Almost all of the mainstream polls were about national popular vote, and predicted that Clinton would win it (she did) and within their margin of error (about 2 points lower than they predicted). The problem is that they construed winning the national popular vote as winning the election, and while they're correlated, one doesn't entail the other. So while their prediction about popular vote turned out to be correct, their misestimation was localized mostly in a few key regions, which narrowly flipped to Trump. And thus we find ourselves in the case where CNN pollsters were right and CNN analysts were bad at explaining it (and made lots of untrue inferences).

grzm 10y ago

CNN and other "polls" were giving Clinton over 80% of chances she win. They all been proven fake. Proven fake how? Bad at predicting the end result? Sure. Misinterpreted? In a lot of cases, yes. Stats and predictions are not intuitive and widely misunderstood, and I certainly think that news outlets should do a better job using and explaining them. Using the 80% figure, that's a 1 in 5 chance of being wrong, which is what happened. This isn't to defend CNN by any stretch. I find the information density poor and not particularly subtle in its interpretation, and its website is annoying. But unless you have evidence of the numbers being made up out of whole cloth, throwing around "the polls were fake" is a gross misrepresentation. If you do have evidence that the numbers were made up, I'd love to see it. By all means, take CNN off of your list of trusted news sources. But please don't use fake polls as a reason for it.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
The problem with CNN is that they were actually right about the numbers and wrong about how to interpret them. Almost all of the mainstream polls were about national popular vote, and predicted that Clinton would win it (she did) and within their margin of error (about 2 points lower than they predicted). The problem is that they construed winning the national popular vote as winning the election, and while they're correlated, one doesn't entail the other. So while their prediction about popular vote turned out to be correct, their misestimation was localized mostly in a few key regions, which narrowly flipped to Trump. And thus we find ourselves in the case where CNN pollsters were right and CNN analysts were bad at explaining it (and made lots of untrue inferences).