3 ms·
>Polling was incapable of accurately determining what the odds really were. Nope. If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the probabilities,
by 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 agoYes :) 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.