Next election, will you trust major media and polls?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

"We simulated a Nov. 8 election 10 million times using our state-by-state averages. In 9.8 million simulations, Hillary Clinton ended up with at least 270 electoral votes. Therefore, we say Clinton has a 98.0 percent chance of becoming president."

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

Wrong.

You don't say... really, so everyone who predicted hillary would win was wrong. Hmmm tell me more.

 

[buckshot24]

STFU, they predicted a 98% chance of 323 electoral votes. Stop spreading lies, clinton shill.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

People make mistakes, we'll see how he handles being shown wrong to see if he is a shill or not.

edit: Didn't see his post admitting his mistake when I wrote this.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

People make mistakes, we'll see how he handles being shown wrong to see if he is a shill or not.

probably much better than you fucktards who are gloating over the drumpf win.

 

[SP33Demon]

Hey you're right, they did! I hadn't seen that.

That being said you're hardly someone to be accusing someone else of being a liar.

It's all good, I thought you clintonians had the huffpo memorized like the gospel? Kidding of course.

 

[buckshot24]

STFU, they predicted a 98% chance of 323 electoral votes. Stop spreading lies, clinton shill.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

Also, they didn't predict a 98% chance of 323 EC votes. They only predicted an 11.4% chance of that exact number. The 98% was for anything over 270.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

ooooh.. am I on THE LIST™!!!! ?

 

[JSt0rm]

I have a job, I work from home. Would rather not share the details in public, but let's say I make more than enough to pay my bills and have some extra.

retard masturbation?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

This is a really weird rant that's almost entirely divorced from reality. Final RCP polling average was Clinton +3. Looks like the final national popular vote will be somewhere around Clinton +2, meaning they were spot on. They were in fact more accurate than in 2012.

Additionally, polling aggregates gave 'leave' and 'remain' nearly equivalent chances of winning in the Brexit vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/upshot/why-the-surprise-over-brexit-dont-blame-the-polls.html?_r=0

I strongly suggest you try to be more serious about how you look at these things because it looks like you've somehow embraced a bizarre conspiracy theory about polling that is easily disproven by even the most basic look at what actually happened.

You're cherry picking, there was hundreds of polls run for the better part of half a year, only a very tiny number of the polls had trump ahead at any stage, some of the news stations had Hillary at a 98% chance to win and were shaming the other outlets who had "only" given her an 80% chance of winning. Trump won by a landslide in the end. All the bookies had had her a near certainty and had trump at huge odds which is why I made so much money on betting trump. A friend had 11/2 odds early in the game but even close to the day I was getting 3/1

https://ig.ft.com/us-elections/polls

Brexit was the same the leave side was behind throughout damn near the entire campaign with a few polls putting them up right near the end a few days before the vote. These graphs look remarkably the same, this default gap that perpetually exists between the 2 main choices, any individual poll that has trump ahead doesn't have them ahead by a landslide they have him ahead just barely by a few points

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

And the media was exactly the same on this issue, the type of attention that Farage got, all the negativity, the media without a doubt mass supported staying with a few exception and we'd get every goofy looking picture of Farage under the sun pop up in papers and on news sites, just like with Trump.

You can certainly see by the response from fkimo that the whole shaming thing is still active. The one thing you missed was the active violent threat to people that backed Trump and showed it by having yard signs, bumper stickers, wore hats etc.

Yep that's the tactic of the left, it's basically make a lot of noise to drown out the opposition, protests were about banging drums, blowing whistles, rattling things and telling anyone who asked them why they don't support Trump it's because he's hitler. Meanwhile online across social media and forums and everywhere else we had the SJWs virtue signalling and basically shaming everyone in sight. I doubt there has ever been a presidential race in history that has had the terms "sexist" and "misogynist" and "hitler" thrown around so much.

And basically what we see here, there isn't any call to post data or facts, or a discussion about opinions or policy, it's just "I strongly suggest you try to be more serious" and trying to shame people as embracing a conspiracy theory. You know if you want to talk conspiracy theories go and read the leaked podesta emails where people in the media are actually feeding hillary things like the questions she wasn't supposed to have for the debates. And about the media collusion allowing her to OK news before it went out.

There's an awesome collation someone did on youtube, i don't have the link right now, but it was of every time the media cut off people talking about hillary and leaked emails and wikileaks, they'd literally just pull the plug the second the word "wikileaks" had left the persons mouth.

Anyway I maintain that the liberal left created Trump, I mean I love the guy and I know they think he's Hitler but the only reason it was him running there instead of one of the other republican candidates is because of the left has acted, the push for political correctness, the takeover of university and the media. When you shame people for their positions for years and years and don't engage in debate then the right elect someone brash who doesn't care about political correctness, he smashes through it like an unstoppable force and millions of disaffected people vote for him.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

America trusts the media as much as they trust Trump . Pretty damn scary .

 

[C1]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/

http://www.thepaperboy.com/

http://www.startpage.com/
https://duckduckgo.com/
http://www.goodgopher.com/

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

America trusts the media as much as they trust Trump . Pretty damn scary .

I trust a fart when I have diarrhea more than I trust drumpf

 

[fskimospy]

You're cherry picking, there was hundreds of polls run for the better part of half a year, only a very tiny number of the polls had trump ahead at any stage, some of the news stations had Hillary at a 98% chance to win and were shaming the other outlets who had "only" given her an 80% chance of winning. Trump won by a landslide in the end. All the bookies had had her a near certainty and had trump at huge odds which is why I made so much money on betting trump. A friend had 11/2 odds early in the game but even close to the day I was getting 3/1

https://ig.ft.com/us-elections/polls

No I'm sorry this is badly wrong and it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. The polls you're referencing were the national popular vote which he did in fact lose. There were plenty of state polls that had him up at various stages throughout the race.

Bookies are not polls, and places like fivethirtyeight gave him a roughly 1 in 3 chance of winning, which if you understand probability is a very possible thing.

Brexit was the same the leave side was behind throughout damn near the entire campaign with a few polls putting them up right near the end a few days before the vote. These graphs look remarkably the same, this default gap that perpetually exists between the 2 main choices, any individual poll that has trump ahead doesn't have them ahead by a landslide they have him ahead just barely by a few points

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

And the media was exactly the same on this issue, the type of attention that Farage got, all the negativity, the media without a doubt mass supported staying with a few exception and we'd get every goofy looking picture of Farage under the sun pop up in papers and on news sites, just like with Trump.

This is incorrect. If you look at the polls leading up to the Brexit vote 'leave' was actually leading in more polls than 'remain' was. Your own poll aggregator put the two at basically dead even. In this part of your post too you seem to be confusing the electoral college vote with the popular vote. The national polls were actually almost right on the nose when it came to popular vote.

From my link:

The polls consistently indicated that there was a very real chance that Britain would vote to leave. Polling averages even showed “Leave” with a lead for most of the last month; over all, 17 of the 35 surveys conducted in June showed the Leave side with the edge, while just 15 showed Remain ahead.

If you have a fact based critique on Brexit polls that show something other than this please link it.

Yep that's the tactic of the left, it's basically make a lot of noise to drown out the opposition, protests were about banging drums, blowing whistles, rattling things and telling anyone who asked them why they don't support Trump it's because he's hitler. Meanwhile online across social media and forums and everywhere else we had the SJWs virtue signalling and basically shaming everyone in sight. I doubt there has ever been a presidential race in history that has had the terms "sexist" and "misogynist" and "hitler" thrown around so much.

And basically what we see here, there isn't any call to post data or facts, or a discussion about opinions or policy, it's just "I strongly suggest you try to be more serious" and trying to shame people as embracing a conspiracy theory. You know if you want to talk conspiracy theories go and read the leaked podesta emails where people in the media are actually feeding hillary things like the questions she wasn't supposed to have for the debates. And about the media collusion allowing her to OK news before it went out.

There actually was a call to post data because what you were saying was easily and provably false. I was the one that cited data which you then ignored. This is what I mean about being more serious, there's no way you could have made the mistakes you've made if you had spent time learning about it. You're from the UK so maybe you don't understand how US elections work but you should take the time to do so before forming strong opinions.

 

[Kazukian]

I wonder what the next election cycle will be like when the news corporations have replaced the journalists with algorithms.

 

[Herr Kutz]

Tip of the hat to you TH, this is a very sensible, and logical question to ask considering how utterly wrong most polls were. My faith in polls and polling will never be the same, that's for damn sure.
But you have to admit that BOTH sides touted polling when it favored their candidate, there are countless threads on this forum alone that prove that, some from you and some from me.

But I FIRMLY disagree with you that the media was against drumpf.
That asshole got 2.8 billion dollars worth of free, unpaid for, airtime. TWO POINT EIGHT BILLION.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-has-gotten-nearly-3-billion-in-free-advertising-2016-05-06
CBS Execs were caught on tape saying how good he was for ratings. So no, under no circumstances was the media against drumpf.

What are you smoking?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

No I'm sorry this is badly wrong and it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. The polls you're referencing were the national popular vote which he did in fact lose.

I understand how the EC works and the difference between the popular vote and EC seats. The point is that across the board even when aggregated across many polls for many months hillary was shown with a large and strong lead. And I've posted the data which clearly demonstrates that. Hillary did not get a popular vote that was congruent with the vast majority of the polls, and in fact some polls were as much as a 11pt lead, and that's from eyeing the data I posted I didn't check every one. But the popular vote was what...1.3% of the total votes difference.

So it's clear, it's a demonstrable fact, the aggregate of all the polls across the vast majority of the media were inaccurate, they had a Hillary bias. Yes she won the popular vote but not by the margins that the MSM were stating. And this isn't cherry picking data or 1 poll it's looking at the broad main stream media picture, being completely out of alignment with reality. And no bookies are not polls, never said they were, but they set their odds based on how they think people will bet to maximize profit and when they see the media bigging up one side they rush in to take advantage of that. This tells us that public perception of both Brexit and the US GE were skewed from what actually occurred in the end.

And no the poll aggregation I posted didn't put them a dead even what a bold faced lie, it put remain ahead by a significant margin for the vast run up to the vote and then only right near the end for barely any time at all they finally cross and align. So once again we have a reality where one side is shown with a clear and decisive lead for sustained period of time, this isn't some fluctuating thing where there's frequent wild swings in either direction with one taking the lead then another for periods of time. This is sustained, this is aggregated out over many polls, this has again 10pt swings in the data for remain to win yet they lost by nearly a 4pt margin.

Again this is what the media portrays in the main. Sure there's some alternative media who push back against the noisy and offer alternative perspective but I'm talking about the large players who are backed by people with a lot of money in the game. These aren't minor fluctuations or outlying data, they're not odd discrepancies or unexplained quirks in the data. This is broad across many places, it's sustained over time and it's aggregates out to be completely detatched from reality. And it doesn't just happen once on Brexit it happens again and again and those of us smart enough to notice it, we make a buck off it. It wasn't some stupid wild guess that made me put money down on this, I saw an opportunity, I knew what was going on and I was vindicated. And my guess is, whatever big event happen next that has a broad left/right divide to it will follow the same pattern, no matter who wins or loses you can gurantee the media will up-play the left wing side of it compared to the final result.

 

[trenchfoot]

I trust a fart when I have diarrhea more than I trust drumpf

Juicy farts are fun and curiously musical in their attenuation. Yes, my opinion is influenced by personal experience.

Placing one's trust in Trump is like playing russian roulette with a fully loaded revolver.

 

[buckshot24]

Juicy farts are fun and curiously musical in their attenuation. Yes, my opinion is influenced by personal experience.

Placing one's trust in Trump is like playing russian roulette with a fully loaded revolver.

Man, those odds suck.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand how the EC works and the difference between the popular vote and EC seats. The point is that across the board even when aggregated across many polls for many months hillary was shown with a large and strong lead. And I've posted the data which clearly demonstrates that. Hillary did not get a popular vote that was congruent with the vast majority of the polls, and in fact some polls were as much as a 11pt lead, and that's from eyeing the data I posted I didn't check every one. But the popular vote was what...1.3% of the total votes difference.

That's why you work with poll aggregates instead of cherry picking polls as you are trying to do now. Clinton was most certainly not shown to have a large and strong lead consistently for the months leading up to the election, as she fluctuated from anywhere of about a dead heat to 6-7 points up. This is why you don't 'eye' the data to see what it says, you actually analyze it in a methodical way. Fivethirtyeight's final vote percentage estimate had her winning by about 3.5 points and in the end it looks like her final lead after they are all counted will be about 2 points. A 1.5 point polling error should not only be accepted but expected.

So it's clear, it's a demonstrable fact, the aggregate of all the polls across the vast majority of the media were inaccurate, they had a Hillary bias. Yes she won the popular vote but not by the margins that the MSM were stating. And this isn't cherry picking data or 1 poll it's looking at the broad main stream media picture, being completely out of alignment with reality. And no bookies are not polls, never said they were, but they set their odds based on how they think people will bet to maximize profit and when they see the media bigging up one side they rush in to take advantage of that. This tells us that public perception of both Brexit and the US GE were skewed from what actually occurred in the end.

No, this is flatly, provably false. Her victory in the popular vote was easily within the margin of error for these polling aggregates and in fact they were closer than they were in 2012 when they had a pro-Romney 'bias'. On no planet are polls where the true result falls within the margin of error 'completely out of alignment with reality'.

And no the poll aggregation I posted didn't put them a dead even what a bold faced lie, it put remain ahead by a significant margin for the vast run up to the vote and then only right near the end for barely any time at all they finally cross and align. So once again we have a reality where one side is shown with a clear and decisive lead for sustained period of time, this isn't some fluctuating thing where there's frequent wild swings in either direction with one taking the lead then another for periods of time. This is sustained, this is aggregated out over many polls, this has again 10pt swings in the data for remain to win yet they lost by nearly a 4pt margin.

So to be clear your argument is that although their final prediction on Brexit was quite close polling at other points in the weeks and months prior said something else and therefore the polls were inaccurate? That makes absolutely no sense from a logical perspective. It also happens to be wrong as I already showed you a slim majority of polls had 'leave' winning in the weeks going up to the vote. Like I said, provably wrong.

What you're mostly doing here is saying things that you emotionally believe to be true. All I'm providing you with is the actual data of what the polls said and what happened.

Again this is what the media portrays in the main. Sure there's some alternative media who push back against the noisy and offer alternative perspective but I'm talking about the large players who are backed by people with a lot of money in the game. These aren't minor fluctuations or outlying data, they're not odd discrepancies or unexplained quirks in the data. This is broad across many places, it's sustained over time and it's aggregates out to be completely detatched from reality. And it doesn't just happen once on Brexit it happens again and again and those of us smart enough to notice it, we make a buck off it. It wasn't some stupid wild guess that made me put money down on this, I saw an opportunity, I knew what was going on and I was vindicated.

So now you're alleging a broad based conspiracy by professional pollsters to try and put their thumb on the scale for political purposes despite their livelihood depending on their results being accurate. On what planet does that make any sense.

If that were the case then all you would need was one pollster to do the 'real' numbers and they would become the go-to pollster for everyone who wanted accurate data. Should be easy enough to do, right? If so, why haven't conservatives started their own polling companies and gotten it all right? Does this seem logical to you?

And my guess is, whatever big event happen next that has a broad left/right divide to it will follow the same pattern, no matter who wins or loses you can gurantee the media will up-play the left wing side of it compared to the final result.

So how do you explain the 2012 presidential election where the polls played up Romney? Oops!

 

[shady28]

I don't know why this is even a question, unless it's just living on because of the lefty political hacks that inhabit this forum.

The evidence is out there in plain sight. The MSM won't report it because - they'd be telling on and discrediting themselves. But it easy to find, very very easy to find.


There's more, way more than below. I could write a book on it, and I'm sure someone will. If the general public had awareness, the DNC would be wrecked.

Don't bet on people staying ignorant indefinitely though. This is out there and it's still gaining momentum, especially with the attack on so-called "Fake News". It's making this more and more visible.

People will not trust the press because they don't deserve trust.

Examples :

Politico Chief Political Correspondent asks John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman, to review his article before publication :

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681#efmAByAEV

"On Apr 30, 2015 3:00 PM, "Glenn Thrush" <gthrush@politico.com> wrote:
> No worries
> Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u
> Please don't share or tell anyone I did this
> Tell me if I fucked up anything"
​

New York Times sends drafts of article to Podesta before publication :

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844

From:nytdirect@nytimes.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-08-21 09:02
Subject: First Draft on Politics: Rivals Can No Longer Ignore Donald Trump's Long Shadow
​

Edits to Wall St Journal and NYT articles from Robby Mook :

From:robbymook2015@gmail.com
To: jbenenson@bsgco.com
CC: nmerrill@hrcoffice.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, jake.sullivan@gmail.com, pir@hrcoffice.com, cheryl.mills@gmail.com, huma@hrcoffice.com more Date: 2015-02-01 18:39 Subject: Re: NYT & WSJ | Econ Stories
Adding Jenn and Kristina Joel I agree w your edits. In particular I want to avoid any expectations around how big or bold her ideas will be. Nick I'm sure you're already doing this but I also would push hard on background that we can't judge a candidate who has yet to announce--give her a chance to speak for herself. I know that's impossible but worth trying to get them to acknowledge that she's not a candidate and this is all speculation.

> On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com> wrote: >
> Thanks Nick. >
> Going for a little more conversational here with this: >
> "Expanding opportunities for average hardworking Americans so that they and their families can get ahead has been a constant fight she has waged in every job she's held. You heard it from her last fall when she was campaigning for Democrats all over the country and repeatedly laid out the challenges many Americans still face as our economy makes gains. She's casting a wide net, talking to a wide range of people on a range of specific topics. There's no red X on a calendar somewhere, but make no mistake, if she runs, she will present to our toughest challenges and she will take nothing for granted and she will fight for every vote."​

CBS panelist asking Podesta what to ask Trump in a phone-in interview :

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7710#efmAakAd6AjgAlR

From:john.podesta@gmail.com
To: glenn.hutchins@gmail.com
Date: 2015-11-14 20:50 Subject: Re: CNBC

 

[agent00f]

<<---------- Trust no one. Verify everyone.

Good to know all the geniuses here are on the same side of this issue.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Just another new story for the liars that try to claim that the media, especially the New York Times isn't biased.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...other-outlets-continue-to-cry-wolf-over-trump
".......
All told, all but one of these stories and editorials can safely be deemed anti-Trump. Only one analysis can be considered to be down-the-middle: "Let’s Say Obamacare Is Repealed. What Then?" And of course, the editorials especially are so far off the rails in terms of negativity that it's almost comical in its hysteria.

This "coverage" comes just one week after New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Dean Baquet promised in a letter to readers that the paper to "rededicate" itself to "...hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly." They wrote:..........."

 

[agent00f]

Just another new story for the liars that try to claim that the media, especially the New York Times isn't biased.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...other-outlets-continue-to-cry-wolf-over-trump
".......
All told, all but one of these stories and editorials can safely be deemed anti-Trump. Only one analysis can be considered to be down-the-middle: "Let’s Say Obamacare Is Repealed. What Then?" And of course, the editorials especially are so far off the rails in terms of negativity that it's almost comical in its hysteria.

This "coverage" comes just one week after New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Dean Baquet promised in a letter to readers that the paper to "rededicate" itself to "...hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly." They wrote:..........."

News needs to be "fair and balanced", lol.

 

[vi edit]

Soooooooo you think all the right leaning news sources don't do the same exact thing? Seriously, Trump went into the fetal position with Hannity and Fox and friends. Tell me that the Trump camp didn't get first pass on things published about Trump.

This same exact thing happens with many areas. Sports, entertainment, business, politics, ect. All of them get groomed over by marketing, lawyers and agents before things are published with the bigger players. They just call them press releases.

 

[fskimospy]

Just another new story for the liars that try to claim that the media, especially the New York Times isn't biased.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...other-outlets-continue-to-cry-wolf-over-trump
".......
All told, all but one of these stories and editorials can safely be deemed anti-Trump. Only one analysis can be considered to be down-the-middle: "Let’s Say Obamacare Is Repealed. What Then?" And of course, the editorials especially are so far off the rails in terms of negativity that it's almost comical in its hysteria.

This "coverage" comes just one week after New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Dean Baquet promised in a letter to readers that the paper to "rededicate" itself to "...hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly." They wrote:..........."

Are you nuts? You think an examination of fake news is partisan? You think that people saying they didn't vote and are okay with that is partisan? You think stating the obvious that Trump's business partners will try to leverage his position is partisan?

Ahhh, another day when a conservative mistakes lack of bias FOR them as evidence of bias AGAINST them.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I don't know if right leaning news sources do the same exact thing. Is there evidence of this? I'd love to see some.

The thing is that there's clear evidence of this happening from the Podesta leaks and the dirt that project veritas dug up, about shipping buses full of people around voting stations, and paying mentally ill people to start fights at Trump rallies. I mean we have video evidence of this and the MSM wont touch it at all. I don't know how you trust that?

We shouldn't accept this kind of stuff from either side and we should take them to task when there's evidence for it and not just accept it as OK because both sides do it. It's why more people are going to alternative media for news.