By the time he made this statement, it had become clear that Trump would carry most of the red states and there would be no EC wipeout. Things that he believed would happen at an earlier stage.
Furthermore, this belief that it won't be an EC wipeout does not rule out still believing that Clinton was as good as guaranteed to win.


This sounds like a stats-literate dude refusing to rule out one of these "1.6% chance" type of events from materializing, rather than a savvy political pundit realizing that Trump's true chance of winning was actually magnitudes larger than 1.6%.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 20 2021 04:23pm

excellence was the one posting it as if it said the opposite of what it said.

I recall it differently.

Thanks for the fucking laugh!

Oh, my bad, I was referring to the third pollster quote you were citing:

This sounds like someone who doesnt want to rule out a 1.6% event from happening, rather than someone realizing that Trump's true chance on the eve of election night was 20-35% instead of 1.6%.

what?






On Nov 3rd 2016 pollster said she’d win in a landslide and the only reason it wouldnt set records was because of “bad press” - as if the media didn’t spend the entire prior month on a hollywood tape from 2005 to try to destroy Trump

here’s another quote from July 2016 of pollster criticizing Trump’s campaign for not spending like a drunken sailor



Pollster’s “best poll aggregator” had hillary winning in 98.1% of all simulations. betting odds were never that slanted.

pollster was delusional just like you are: Only pollster had the good sense to go away

I recall it differently.



You're posting stuff a year out or months out from the election.

I know this isn't the point of this thread, but I like that Trump is slowly getting back into shape.

saw a news article that he is down 15 pounds

he's also going to be a boxing commentator this week for Vitor Belfort and Evander Holyfield

yeah well thats a stressful job and Trump was already not a healthy eater.

Slick Willie yo-yo’d quite a bit thanks to his penchant for McDonalds and fried chicken (cant blame him there). Obama “quit cigs” but stayed skinny. Hmm…

not everyone just eats only ice cream like the current wierdo

People who are extremely knowledgeable about politics do not actively advocate for one side or another when making predictions. The reason 538 was so incredibly wrong, as with Pollster, in 2016, was specifically because they were not making predictions, they were advocating. Pollster was basing all his probabilities on HuffPo's aggregate, which was 100% pro-Clinton. 538 set their aggregate rankings with any polls that were Trump leaning to D- or below, with Clinton advocates such as HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, etc. at A+.

The fact of the matter is that a "1.8% chance" only came about due to political ignorance and active advocacy. Anyone with real knowledge of politics would have taken a much more varied look at the polls, the audience for those polls, and took a look at where the Independent voter audience was based out of. When the Independents were abandoning CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, etc. and flocking to Fox News, Joe Rogan, Daily Wire, and Steven Crowder, among others, it should have been a major clue that the inherent bias in the left leaning polls was not in way accurate enough to base predictions on.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 9 2021 06:48am

2016 polls were off fairly across the board due to anti-media motivations of many Trump supporters. i'd love to see a write-up on sources that predicted a Trump win, and would guess almost all advocated for Trump. and yet these polls still "got it right".