4 ms·

Polls like this are usually wrong, just look at the polls regarding the 2016 US elections.

MattGaiser 5y ago
1. They weren't wrong nationally. They just didn't get the state by state breakdown correct. You have to remember that polls show a numerical outcome, not necessarily how it will filter through the various rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... 2. Even those that were off were off by just a few percentage points. This is a 2 to 1 ratio.
mhh__ 5y ago
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, using 2016 to argue polls are massively off is basically admitting you don't understand what you're talking about.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  They had the odds of her winning at 99%. It was all they talked about. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-p...
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Who is they? Huffington post? 538 had it at 60ish%
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      The article lists other sources and a quick search will get you a lot further than wanting me to be AI to fulfill your every request. Point being they were wrong and surveys are not as reliable as fact and can be manipulated.
      - mhh__ 5y ago
        You're talking about completely different things. Odds are an estimate of who will come out over the line quicker, polls are the underlying data used to calibrate that model. The odds set in 2016 by various groups were often wildly bearish on Trump winning, the polls were not so much. Political polls and surveys are usually not off the mark by all that much, especially if you have good demography data. Surveys can be manipulated but they are also much better than flying blind with no data at all.

1. They weren't wrong nationally. They just didn't get the state by state breakdown correct. You have to remember that polls show a numerical outcome, not necessarily how it will filter through the various rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... 2. Even those that were off were off by just a few percentage points. This is a 2 to 1 ratio.

mhh__ 5y ago

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, using 2016 to argue polls are massively off is basically admitting you don't understand what you're talking about.

encryptluks2 5y ago
They had the odds of her winning at 99%. It was all they talked about. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-p...
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Who is they? Huffington post? 538 had it at 60ish%
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    The article lists other sources and a quick search will get you a lot further than wanting me to be AI to fulfill your every request. Point being they were wrong and surveys are not as reliable as fact and can be manipulated.
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      You're talking about completely different things. Odds are an estimate of who will come out over the line quicker, polls are the underlying data used to calibrate that model. The odds set in 2016 by various groups were often wildly bearish on Trump winning, the polls were not so much. Political polls and surveys are usually not off the mark by all that much, especially if you have good demography data. Surveys can be manipulated but they are also much better than flying blind with no data at all.