0
3

[–] brandon816 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I guess the herd ran off a cliff this time around.

0
3

[–] youareivan [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

what's really amazing to me is that one of the big takeaways from obama/romney was that romney's team was so out of touch with voters because they only listened to people who agreed with them. i remember specifically that the gop found nate silver's predictions, which were pretty accurate that election cycle, so unpleasant that they went out and got their own pollster who reported what they wanted to hear. it's ironic that the democrats did essentially the same thing this cycle.

0
3

[–] brandon816 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The major difference is that the DNC actually had media backing, though. GOP basically just had Fox News behind them at the time. The DNC this time around, however, could actually put up an entire facade by putting up a few slanted major polls, causing the others to bend to them. Through that, they could sway the opinion of anyone easily convinced by the MSM, in order to help prevent any bleedoff of their voterbase due to the fact that they were really pushing Clinton. That they managed to hold on as well as they had, shows that they knew their voterbase quite well and simply didn't care for the rest of the voters.

The only reasons that this failed (regarding their side) are that people on the internet became better at finding, retaining, and disseminating information, and that Clinton has a lot of negative information on the internet. A number of borderline voters were pushed away from her because of it, and she ultimately needed them to win. She actually still won the popular vote (barely), but didn't hold enough battleground states because of that small push.

The core DNC group actually knew it would be close from their internal polling. You can see it in some of the Wikileaks e-mails. Their plan just happened to rely on misleading everyone else, so they had to "drink the coolaid".

0
1

[–] crazy_eyes 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think maybe some of them are afraid of hillary

0
2

[–] Mathurin1911 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Meh, statistical adjusting is complicated. Its part of why I dont trust the more complicated statistical measures, but adjustment can make sense in some scenarios.

Think about it like this. Lets say you sample 1000 people on their enjoyment of waving sticks at fences to keep kids off their lawn. You find that 45% of those 1000 people very much enjoyed the activity. However, you also find that you somehow managed to accidently select a sample that was 65% over the age of 80. When using the sample you might find it reasonable to weight the choices of the sample subjects to make the outcome more representative of the population. IE, placing greater weight on the younger subjects to make the poll better reflect what it would have been if you hadnt gone to a retirement village to conduct your poll.

Why not just rerun the sample somewhere else, somewhere more representative of the whole population? Because sampling is the expensive part.

This is not a defense of tactics used to generate polls, just one of the idea of adjustment. I personally abhor the "Fun with numbers" tactics that all politicians seem happy to use.

0
2

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

In my work, we usually call it 'smoothing'.

Given a population of 1000, pollsters A, B, C, D and E each sample 50 people at random. Pollster E finds results that differ somewhat significantly from the findings of A, B, C and D so he reduces confidence in his own sample because he's only got 50 data points whereas the other polls have ~200 data points combined. This might be reasonable because the relative weakness of E's sample makes it more sensitive to outliers.

0
1

[–] newoldwave 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Nothing scientific about that or just liberals who failed statistics class.

0
1

[–] ape147 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Liberal logic!