4 ms·
I am not saying that. I'm saying that the polling data is so flawed because it's not getting into a specific democratic that it's off by much wider margin. So m
by rhacker 6y ago
I am not saying that. I'm saying that the polling data is so flawed because it's not getting into a specific democratic that it's off by much wider margin. So much so that if Trump wins again it's because it was a 40% chance he won both 2016 and 2020, we just don't have the polling data to prove that number.
So while you say 6% "happens all the time" - no it actually happens 6% of the time. But 40% for both terms would indicate more like he had a 70% last time and maybe another 60% this time. The pollsters can be correct for fucking California, but what good is that if they're super wrong because racist people in Alabama don't click or pick up the phone (or have no phone to begin with) or talk to pollsters.
- edmundsauto 6y agoYou would need more evidence to determine that. 2016 + 2020 isn't enough -- you'd need to actually show that this is happening, rather than using 2 results to back into your belief. To clarify, my intention was to state, "outcomes with 6% of odds happening will occur very frequently" - not relatively. A good hitter in baseball hits homers about 6% of the time. If they hit homers in 2 at bats, we would not have enough information to say much about their true talent.