Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Ray Pooch Wrote:jaredsxtn Wrote:Ray Pooch Wrote:Polls are unreliable. 2016 proved it with a thunderclap.
Let's not keep making the same mistakes.
Actually, the polls were spot on in 2016.
No they weren't.
Yes, they were.
Ray Pooch Wrote:
[jaredsxtn]: The national polling average had Clinton ahead by two-three percentage points and she won by exactly 2.1%.
No. The national polling average was "spot on". Not the polls.
By analogy, if someone had said in 2016 that Clinton was 40 years old but Trump was 100, the average (70) would have been "spot on". And yet that person would have been badly wrong about both.
In the same way, the polls did well when you averaged over the states, but they got the (key) states themselves badly wrong. Which is why you had major outlets on election day giving Clinton a ridiculously high chance of winning, often in the ninety percents.
Are you just trying to fuck with me now? Did you read what I wrote? You quoted me and then went on a rant about something entirely different.
The national polling average had Clinton winning by 2-3 percentage points. They were accurate.
They also didn't get the (key) states "badly wrong." Donald "won" because a handful of pissed off white people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin showed up by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points more than Hillary voters. That is WELL within the margin of error that any poll could EVER have predicted.
Donald "won" the Presidency because 79,646 Bernie or busters and other assholes in three states decided to overrule the will of the American people.