Exactly my point. Polls don’t mean anything when dealing with the Republican party.
You totally missed my point but nevermind. I don’t have time to argue with you.
Thank you for accurately clarifying my point.
But let me clarify further. American women do vote and in recent elections (last 10 years or so) have voted in larger numbers than men by 5%+. Women are voting for the politicians who oppose women’s issues at every level. Indeed, numbers don’t lie and the Republican party understands this and this is why they behave as do: They pay no price for their misogyny and will continue until they are driven out of office.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap_in_the_United_States
Actually, they didn’t. The vast majority of the polls were well within the margin of accuracy
But you go on doing you…
1 Like
Something doesn’t have to be a sole cause, to be a major cause. So when I read these articles that I’ve read for 20 plus years about women voter anger with Republicans, I don’t see it.
“Women are so angry,” Trump said. “And I frankly think, I think they like what the Republicans are doing.”
“Corn dogs are fattening” he said “And I frankly think they will help you lose weight.”
“Guns are essential to have for everybody.” he said “No one is allowed to have a gun around me because they are dangerous.”
“Black people are angry.” he said “And frankly I think that they’re grateful they have a law and order president.”
1 Like
I’m not sure why you’re arguing this point, but here are just a few results from a simple google search:
“A conglomerate of top pollsters released an autopsy report last week on polling in the 2016 election — specifically, what went wildly wrong in overwhelming predictions of a Hillary Clinton presidency.”
“Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%”
“Before election day, they were showing a sustained but narrowing lead for Hillary Clinton.”
“Chances of winning: Hillary Clinton 71.4%”
Funny how you skipped right over the five thirty eight analysis
“The miss wasn’t unprecedented or even, these days, all that unusual. Polls have missed recent elections in the U.S. and abroad by margins at least as big. Every poll, and every prediction based on it, is probabilistic in nature: There’s always a chance the leader loses. And Clinton probably didn’t even lose the national popular vote; she just didn’t win it by as much as polls suggested. “
The polls didn’t ‘fail’, they were off by a larger percentage than normal, due to the things your articles cited, national polls were within the margin of error.
Understanding what you’re talking about, and the process involves, tends to tamp down alarmist proclamations like ‘the polls failed!’ with actual facts.
Now you’re arguing a different point.
- You said the upcoming elections proved a point you made.
- I said you can’t prove a point with evidence that doesn’t exist yet.
- You asked me if I had ever heard of polls.
- I said yes, and that the polls were incorrect in the case of Clinton.
And now you’re saying that polls are often wrong.
So, yes, I agree with you and the article that polls are often wrong. I hope and expect that November will see the Republicans majorities fall. But I’m not willing to use the data from polling to prove any argument in the present because very recently, a) polls were wrong, and b) outside forces stole the election.
I wasn’t ‘proving’ anything, I was advancing an argument. I also listened to yours, read your posting and replied.
Here’s MY argument. Hilary didn’t ‘lose’, she was disenfranchisednby Crosscheck and possibly by a widespread republican conspiracy with russia.
There is MUCH indication that this is the real culprit in Hilary ‘losing’. She might not have won by much but when Crosscheck eliminates 5x as many voters as the margin of victory, your argument that the the polls failed is premature at best.
I am 100% sure that Hillary lost because of a Republican conspiracy. The polls were incorrect because they were not designed to account for Russian interference, vote suppression, voting machine tampering, etc.
Polls are still not designed to account for these things, and until they are, cannot be used to advance any theory.
And yet, that’s exactly what they are used for every single day.
And therein lies a huge problem. We are using broken models and pretending that they work.
Broken? There you go with alarmism again.
Do you really think pollsters aren’t adjusting their models? Again, the polls aren’t ‘broken’, the electorate is in flux. Big difference.
I have no idea if the pollsters are adjusting their models. If you have evidence that they are, please present it. If not, neither of us can make any assumptions as to whether they are now accounting for these variables. If they’re not, then their results will be inaccurate, if these particular variables play a role in the current cycle. Given the history of the Republican party, I’m going to assume that they are going to play a role. I admittedly have no proof at this point, but it’s enough of a possibility that it calls the poll results into question.
If we can get out the vote, we can overcome all these issues. Because of the fact that a very small percentage of the voting age population actually votes, and that this has been the case for longer than my 50 years, I have a certain amount of concern that we are in for another bitter surprise. I’m working on Senator McCaskill’s campaign in an effort to do my part to avoid such an outcome.
Did you do memhe favor of reading that citation? Five thirty eight has stated exactly such. I know one of the adjunct professors at Marist personally, and yes they are dealing with it in their way too. Others pollsters are doing this or will become outliers in the next two years.
Have you noticed any of these pollsters making the rounds on tv making predictions? Me either. You will notice they continue to poll though, yes?
Not a one of them will say too much (like what exactly they are doing) but why what I want to know is why your outlook and attitude is so prosaic, so pedestrian? Are you one of those who thinks everyone is stupid? Can you not see anything beyond the simplest plot lines?
Since you asked, yes I have ‘some knowlege’ of this subject, as well as some contacts. The ones I know are very smart and excruciatingly aware of the subjects they study. In fact, I’ve found that with many professionals are.
Only the hopelessly cynical or the ignorant (but I repeat myself) are so certain of their positions that they simply can’t lean anything beyond their beliefs…
I have done my best to ignore your insults and ad hominem attacks and to stick to the discussion and the facts of which I am aware. I will do so no longer.
You win no arguments by accusing your opponents (without any proof beyond what you glean from a few sentences of interchange) of being “alarmist,” “pedestrian,” or “ignorant.” All you do is show yourself to be a jerk. You would make a great addition to the Republican SJC panel.
I will not engage with you again on any subject.