Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 6 2019 11:27am)

I dont think Hillary spending more time in these states would have made a difference. She was just the wrong person with the wrong platform to appeal to them.

Quote (thesnipa @ 6 Feb 2019 18:36)

true and false, imo.

people in a sense base their platform on where they visit. if her gameplan included more trips to the rust belt you would have for sure seen more talk of the automotive industry and mining. the fact that she wasn't there and it wasn't a part of her national platform are hand in hand.

ive been to plenty of presidential hopeful rallies, they constantly try to shoehorn in pro-local talking points. even if they're empty talk they seem persuasive on the voting outcome. When Obama came to Oshkosh in 2008 he not only addressed the Oshkosh Truck corporation but also noted that his plans to be less interventionist in the Middle East wouldn't negatively impact orders. They lace in a few jokes about the local food/drink usually to seem more relate-able, talk about local sports teams, etc.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 6 2019 11:45am)

probably true. hillary's platform was really designed for "coastal elites", so the tone for her campaign was set against the priorities of rural america from the get go.

Quote (thesnipa @ 6 Feb 2019 18:52)

100%. she trusted that areas like WI and MI were liberal enough naturally to swing for her without even trying. The Flynt water crisis plays a role in that im sure.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 6 2019 12:08pm)

do you really think the Flynt water crisis influenced votes in WI or PA?

Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 6 2019 11:52am)

100%. she trusted that areas like WI and MI were liberal enough naturally to swing for her without even trying. The Flynt water crisis plays a role in that im sure.

Quote (Surfpunk @ Feb 6 2019 12:30pm)

We talking Larry Flynt? Because that's a WAAAAAY different water crisis. :)

Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 6 2019 10:28am)

maybe their poll would be more accurate if they weren't asking non-likely voters, unregistered / non-citizens and drastically oversampling metropolitan voices before they weight their demographics. With 65% cell phones and 10%+ unregistered voters and asking for the youngest in the house and sampling 30% more democrats than republicans, they produce the kind of highly skewed polling that we saw in 2016 that got it so wrong.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 6 2019 11:44am)

the main problem, the main thing the pundits got wrong in 2016, was not the polling itself, it was with translating the polling numbers into a probability to win the presidency.

in essence, there were two contradicting trends, which btw were also in effect in 2018:

- rural america trending towards republicans and also showing higher turnout numbers than in the years before trump
- urban and urban-suburban america trending blue


these trends cancelled each other out to a certain degree in the national popular vote, so that someone who was only looking on the surface thought everything would still move along the known patterns, and hillary was simply winning by a solid but not overwhelming margin. with this understanding of the dynamics of the race, they also thought that the EC would be helping her and not him. people just didnt realize that trump's coalition was much more efficiently distributed in the electoral college than that of Romney or McCain, turning the EC into an advantage for him. they also failed to account for the fact that trump was activating his base better than hillary was turning out hers.

Quote (Ghot @ Feb 6 2019 12:37pm)

THIS






These trends are always present.

Election, approval, polls are just like the BS tossed around in the stock market, bitcoins, sports even. They are crafted to manipulate people, not to inform them.
In 2016, the polls gave Hillary a 98% chance to win.
The book: How to Lie with Statistics, pretty much explains the how and why for crafting statistics, polls, trends, etc.

As for ABC, Wash. Post and MSNBC... they can't even get the news right, let alone a poll.



Only dead fish go with the flow.