3 ms·

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

by 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.
      - tomlock 10y ago
        >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. If there are 10% odds of something happening and it happens after one event, that's absolutely not a reason to say the data points that generated the odds are flawed. That is the reason you presented.
        ra1n85 10y ago
        It's not. I'll clarify, to help. The reason not to trust polling data presented today is that the probabilities presented in the past were not accurate.
        tomlock 10y ago
        Based on what data?
Chathamization 10y ago
Clinton ended up with a 2.1% victory; the RCP polling average before the election was 3.2% in favor of Clinton. So a 1.1% difference, which isn't huge. Some of that might be explained by the Comey announcement as well.
SolaceQuantum 10y ago
The polling data was that it is possible for it to occur, although unlikely. It occurred. I'm not sure where the data said otherwise, or where it isn't correlating with reality.

by 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.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      >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. If there are 10% odds of something happening and it happens after one event, that's absolutely not a reason to say the data points that generated the odds are flawed. That is the reason you presented.
      - ra1n85 10y ago
        It's not. I'll clarify, to help. The reason not to trust polling data presented today is that the probabilities presented in the past were not accurate.
        tomlock 10y ago
        Based on what data?

Chathamization 10y ago

Clinton ended up with a 2.1% victory; the RCP polling average before the election was 3.2% in favor of Clinton. So a 1.1% difference, which isn't huge. Some of that might be explained by the Comey announcement as well.

SolaceQuantum 10y ago

The polling data was that it is possible for it to occur, although unlikely. It occurred. I'm not sure where the data said otherwise, or where it isn't correlating with reality.