4 ms·

Not sure what stats back up this claim. I've heard people say this movement is anti-globalization, about the economy, anti-PC, anti-establishment - yadda yadda

• ra1n85 10y ago
  >Trump at the moment has a very low approval rating - maybe not everyone got what they read into him? Polls also predicted him to have less than a 10% chance of winning the election. Not all data is good data.
  • tomlock 10y ago
    Most analysis showed he had some chance of winning, and he won by a relatively low margin. If you rolled a ten sided dice once and it came up with a ten, would you feel repeated tests that showed there was a 10% chance of that outcome should be ignored in future?
  • pavlov 10y ago
    If the polls had said "0.1% chance", I would agree with you. But a 10% chance is actually quite high odds. Things much less likely than that happen to everyone, every day. The predictions were essentially right. Hillary Clinton had a better chance of winning the election, but Trump successfully rolled the dice with his 10% odds: he campaigned in some critical states that were expected to go blue and won them over by a narrow majority.
  • SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    So now I'm confused. Does a low approval rate matter, is it "bad data"? What defines "bad data"? Say the statistics running around this thread specifically about crime in countries, broken down by race and type or crime, or broken down further by region within counties too. How does one determine "good data" vs "bad data" here?
    • ra1n85 10y ago
      Sorry you're confused. Point was pretty clear: US polling data was not found to correlate strongly with reality, so treat it with some suspicion. Can't really break it down further than that.
      • tomlock 10y ago
        So saying an event has a 10% chance of happening, and then it happening after one roll of the dice, is enough reason to doubt the data?
        • ra1n85 10y ago
          Nope. Polling was incapable of accurately determining what the odds really were. If that die was six-side, but I told you there was a consistent 10% chance of rolling a 1, then I'm providing you with a bad probability. The media and pollsters did the same (for whatever reason).
          • tomlock 10y ago
            >Polling was incapable of accurately determining what the odds really were. Nope. If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the probabilities, which showed it was well within the realm of possibility that trump would win, aren't evidence the polls were out of alignment with reality.
            • ra1n85 10y ago
              Yes :) Semantics at this point. I'll rephrase your comment with consistent terms: If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the odds, which showed it was well within the realm of possibility that trump would win, aren't evidence the polls were out of alignment with reality. The possibility of Trump winning does not exonerate the accuracy of the odds presented by polls. The odds were not correct, and the polling data was flawed.
  • Chathamization 10y ago
    That's how people interpreted the polls. But there were a lot of people who said that assigning a probability to the election was a foolish thing to do. Also worth noting that accurate national polls wouldn't have captured a Trump victory (since Clinton lead in the popular vote). You would need state polls, but they're not always accurate. Trump's win in Michigan was a big surprise, but so was Sanders' win in Michigan a few months earlier.
  • soundwave106 10y ago
    FiveThirtyEight pegged Trump's chances more in the 25%-30% range. Not all data is analyzed well.