Bill Maher and trump disagree

Republicans arent going to protect trump after he is no longer useful. Dog eat dog they will turn on him the moment they think itll help just like they bowed to him after many of them spent campaign trail talking about him the same sort of way Democrats did and do now. They are snakes.

Then in 20 years he will become a right wing folk hero like Reagan.

Your misreading the situation, at least partially:
Yes, unlikely events happen from time to time, and yes, polling is not fundamentally broken as some Trump supporters claim.

But what you're missing with this viewpoint is how fundamentally almost all the media misread the polling and that they did indeed severely underestimate Trump's chances of winning.

HuffPo's 98.2% chance of Hillary winning was a completely ridiculous number, but even other news outlets like the nytimes rated the race as 90/10 or 85/15 or something like that. Which again was neither justified by the polling nor by the electoral college math.
At the end of the day, these news outlets were heavily rooting against Trump, and their bias spilled over into their analysis.

Realistically, on election day, it was approximately 70/30 race, which is also what fivethirtyeight and some other sites predicted based on an actual, statistically competent analysis of the race.
Note that there's a world of a difference between a 2:1 underdog (66:33 percent) winning and a 49:1 underdog (98:2 percent) pulling it off.



What decided the election in the end were three factors:

- late-deciding voters broke for Trump by a 3:1 margin, and Trump won a solid majority among those voters who hated both candidates.
- Hillary wasnt quite able to match Obama's turnout among black voters, which really shouldnt have surprised anyone. This likely cost her Michigan, North Carolina and potentially Florida.
- Trump matched Romney's numbers from a macro perspective, but under the surface, his candidacy facilitated a swap: he got higher turnout and even better margins out of white working-class voters, but his margin among college-educated whites decreased. This subtle voter swap was advantageous in the electoral college: there's plenty of white working-class people in the midwest, while the voters which he turned off (college educated whites) are predominantly found in the northeast and the sunbelt suburbs. Since neither the northeast corridor nor Texas or California were in play, losing these voters didnt hurt him in the EC.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 25 2019 05:52am

Those late voters were swayed by hillaries indictment which happened AFTER all the polling, so a 3:1 swing against her from that and also the bernie bro's was not in the polling results.
So obviously that 70/30 on election day would have been a much biggger split to hillary weeks before those events.
At the time of the polling it was probably accurate, that 2% chance came through for trump.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jul 25 2019 05:58am

to add to my post above, look at this article by David Wasserman, one of the country's most reputable election analysts:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/how-trump-could-lose-5-million-votes-still-win-2020-n1031601

Again, you dont understand how much of a difference there is between a 30% probability of winning and a 2% probability.

At no point during the entire race was Trump's win probability 2% or lower. Not even at the height of the access hollywood news cycle.

Either his chances of winning were 100% or 0%, i would say his chance had the dnc not screwed bernie over and had hillary not been indicted would have been 0% but as those things happened his chance to win became 100%.

Jesus christ... you have absolutely no clue about probability and statistics...

The moment everyone had decided their votes there was a 100% probability that one of the two candidates would win, the one who had the right amount of votes in the right areas.
This was trump, once those votes were decided he had a 100% chance to win.
Had the tiles not fallen as they did with bernie and the indictment then hillary would have won, the data is already there, she barely lost as it was.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jul 25 2019 06:46am

his iq is too high for such meager concepts

No, they weren't.

Polls are meant to predict what will happen in the future. you only have a 100-0 in the present, as that's when things happen or don't happen. no one needs a probability for the present.

think of it like professional darts. they take your average # of triple 20s you get, then factor that against the score remaining, to give you a % chance to go to zero in the next turn. once your turn comes up you either do or don't go out, then you either win or its the other person's turn.

applying your logic to that it would be like saying they either have a 100% chance or a 0% chance to go out, which is silly. if they did it 100 times in a row they'd perhaps go out 70 of them. meaning there's a 70% chance they go out.