3 ms·

Exit poll numbers weren't off. Predictions were only off because people ignored the actual polls and inserted their own biases into the interpretation of said p

Exit poll numbers weren't off. Predictions were only off because people ignored the actual polls and inserted their own biases into the interpretation of said polls, and thought popular vote == winning.

monocasa 8y ago
That's my understanding too, that despite being heavily data driven, the Clinton campaign (and most of the polling agencies as well since they were using the same techniques) didn't have anywhere near a correct model for a "likely voter". That biased the results of their total model heavily towards Clinton.
- pmyteh 8y ago
  It's very hard to come up with reliable likely voter models, not least because there are significant changes in people who vote every time. The opinion polls in the 2017 British general election were out, for example, because in the event unusual numbers of unlikely voters came out to vote Labour. Things were obviously going to be different that time (Labour had elected a deeply unlikey leader and repositioned itself) but no-one had any solid evidence how turnout patterns would change, or to what degree. So yes, inaccurate likely voter modeling is a serious problem. But it's really hard if things are changing, politically.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Oh absolutely, it's a nearly impossible task. You can't even trust current polls asking people if they're likely to vote.
- luke0016 8y ago
  If we had paper trails, this claim could be even more confidently asserted.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Well, hopefully paper trails don't have any identifiable information connected to the votes or else you end up with vote buying and coercion attacks.
    - luke0016 8y ago
      Of course not. I go in, I vote, the vote is recorded electronically, and a piece of paper that only indicates who was voted for is spit out. No personally identifiable information. It's not like this is hard. We were doing paper secret ballots for literally centuries before electronic voting machines came along.
propman 8y ago
There was a poll that normalized the data by assuming 98% of African Americans were in favor of Clinton based on a minuscule sample size heavily dependent on African American women which didn’t raise a red flag for me BUT that poll assumed that Black voters would come out with a greater turnout than for Obama which I thought was ridiculously untrue. Now this was a public poll and not their internals, but after reading that I placed some friendly wagers that trump would win certain states (he won 3/4 I predicted). At the time I thought Clinton was a superior candidate to Trump, so I did message a Clinton campaign member my concerns and was ignored. I posted on a Clinton forum and got blocked for being a right wing troll and was told they were ahead in Arizona and competitive in Texas, so there’s no way they need to be concerned about the states I mentioned. The group think was absurd. No dissent allowed. I bought Chasing Hillary by a NYTimes reporter and that absurd elitism and overconfidence and refusal to hear any real dissent was a recurring theme in that book. (I wouldn’t reccomend it, but the biggest lesson I learned there was the Clinton campaign played everything so safe. A dozen reviewers checking every joke, every line, every answer so every comment Hillary spoke became devoid of substance and too safe and many good plays were shot down if any of a handful of people disagreed with them).

monocasa 8y ago

That's my understanding too, that despite being heavily data driven, the Clinton campaign (and most of the polling agencies as well since they were using the same techniques) didn't have anywhere near a correct model for a "likely voter". That biased the results of their total model heavily towards Clinton.

pmyteh 8y ago
It's very hard to come up with reliable likely voter models, not least because there are significant changes in people who vote every time. The opinion polls in the 2017 British general election were out, for example, because in the event unusual numbers of unlikely voters came out to vote Labour. Things were obviously going to be different that time (Labour had elected a deeply unlikey leader and repositioned itself) but no-one had any solid evidence how turnout patterns would change, or to what degree. So yes, inaccurate likely voter modeling is a serious problem. But it's really hard if things are changing, politically.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Oh absolutely, it's a nearly impossible task. You can't even trust current polls asking people if they're likely to vote.
luke0016 8y ago
If we had paper trails, this claim could be even more confidently asserted.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Well, hopefully paper trails don't have any identifiable information connected to the votes or else you end up with vote buying and coercion attacks.
  - luke0016 8y ago
    Of course not. I go in, I vote, the vote is recorded electronically, and a piece of paper that only indicates who was voted for is spit out. No personally identifiable information. It's not like this is hard. We were doing paper secret ballots for literally centuries before electronic voting machines came along.

propman 8y ago

There was a poll that normalized the data by assuming 98% of African Americans were in favor of Clinton based on a minuscule sample size heavily dependent on African American women which didn’t raise a red flag for me BUT that poll assumed that Black voters would come out with a greater turnout than for Obama which I thought was ridiculously untrue. Now this was a public poll and not their internals, but after reading that I placed some friendly wagers that trump would win certain states (he won 3/4 I predicted). At the time I thought Clinton was a superior candidate to Trump, so I did message a Clinton campaign member my concerns and was ignored. I posted on a Clinton forum and got blocked for being a right wing troll and was told they were ahead in Arizona and competitive in Texas, so there’s no way they need to be concerned about the states I mentioned. The group think was absurd. No dissent allowed. I bought Chasing Hillary by a NYTimes reporter and that absurd elitism and overconfidence and refusal to hear any real dissent was a recurring theme in that book. (I wouldn’t reccomend it, but the biggest lesson I learned there was the Clinton campaign played everything so safe. A dozen reviewers checking every joke, every line, every answer so every comment Hillary spoke became devoid of substance and too safe and many good plays were shot down if any of a handful of people disagreed with them).