I remember when

[bcking 3,157]

None of the polls I saw gave staying home as an option. And unfortunately for the Democrats, that seemed to end up being a viable choice. Voter turnout definitely hurt Clinton. In Wisconsin, Trump got less votes than Romney did in 2012 but still won.

I'm surprised no pollsters ask "Are you planning to vote?". Did you check their methodology? I wonder if that is their first question and it is part of their inclusion criteria (Meaning they only poll people who first say they are planning to vote).

If that is a standard part of inclusion criteria for the poll, then you're right perhaps polls should start polling people REGARDLESS of their intention to vote, to get a better idea of the population as a whole.

[Eric-Pris 1,606]

When Trump talked about the rigged election, in terms of the media, I was skeptical, but I kind of saw it last night. And it happened on many channels, I flipped between, CBS, NBC, ABS, FOX, and NY1NEWS.

Even though it was pretty evident that Trump had won it, they all said that it's not over yet. They were holding on to any last glimmer of hope they could muster until they finally learned that she conceded. Reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

None of the polls I saw gave staying home as an option. And unfortunately for the Democrats, that seemed to end up being a viable choice. Voter turnout definitely hurt Clinton. In Wisconsin, Trump got less votes than Romney did in 2012 but still won the state.

every poll I saw was of likely voters

[Dakine10 5,452]

I'm surprised no pollsters ask "Are you planning to vote?". Did you check their methodology? I wonder if that is their first question and it is part of their inclusion criteria (Meaning they only poll people who first say they are planning to vote).

If that is a standard part of inclusion criteria for the poll, then you're right perhaps polls should start polling people REGARDLESS of their intention to vote, to get a better idea of the population as a whole.

I think they do ask that, and I imagine a lot of the people who stayed home were planning to vote until something better came up. I just think the threshold for what constitutes something better to do might have been low for some.

[bcking 3,157]

When Trump talked about the rigged election, in terms of the media, I was skeptical, but I kind of saw it last night. And it happened on many channels, I flipped between, CBS, NBC, ABS, FOX, and NY1NEWS.

Even though it was pretty evident that Trump had won it, they all said that it's not over yet. They were holding on to any last glimmer of hope they could muster until they finally learned that she conceded. Reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

Granted I didn't stay up the entire night but at least at 11pm CST when I went to bed there was still a legitimate way for her to win. It was looking small, and I was mostly following on CNN and that was made pretty clear on their headlines saying "Trump favored" etc... But technically Florida took awhile and it was neck and neck. Several other states will also still close with <10% left to count.

Yes it took Clinton awhile to "officially" make a concession speech (her speech today), but I don't think her call to Trump was particularly delayed.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I think they do ask that, and I imagine a lot of the people who stayed home were planning to vote until something better came up. I just think the threshold for what constitutes something better to do might have been low for some.

to be honest I almost stayed home

[Dakine10 5,452]

to be honest I almost stayed home

I was watching hockey, Oilers vs Penguins. It looked like it was going to overtime and I definitely wasn't leaving. Then the Oilers banked one into their own net off their goalie in the last minute. Until then staying home on the couch looked like a pretty good option.

[TBoneTX 45,299]

Here are some insights as to how and why most of the pollsters blew it:

What Happened Last Night Was Obvious, But the "Experts" Didn't Want to See It

November 09, 2016

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Seventy percent of the people in this country told the pollsters, who refused to listen. The pollsters refused to see the crowds. The pollsters refused to assign legitimacy to anything having to do with Trump, including his voters.

The pollsters have made the biggest mess of their business in the history of their business. Every pollster except two -- well, three -- got this totally wrong because of their own closed-mindedness, because of their own bigotry. The people voting for Donald Trump have been there since July of last year. What they think has been out there since July of last year, who they are and what they care about. You can learn about it, you could know it since July of last year.

Analysis continues here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/09/what_happened_last_night_was_obvious_but_the_experts_didn_t_want_to_see_it

Edited November 10, 2016 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 45,299]

1. Correct me if I'm wrong but from just glancing at that website, that is not a poll. That is a model to predict the outcome, but it isn't based on polling data. It's based on actual voting data from the primaries. So it's a little different the argument can still stand that the "polls", even when scientific, failed to predict the outcome very well.

2. Also I was a little confused by the website because at the beginning it talks about predicting Trump will be President, but a little ways down it mentions how it has predicted the winner of the POPULAR VOTE in the last 5 elections. Which one does it predict? Since as we all remember you can become President and not win the popular vote. Last I checked Trump and Clinton were neck and neck so he may very well lose the popular vote.

1. You're right.

2. Write the professor and ask.

[jg121783 3,915]

I hear Nate Silver may be looking for a job. I probably checked that site 10 times a day.

Boy did he bomb it.

I recall a couple weeks ago posting an interview with a professor who got all of his previous presidential predictions correct saying Trump would win. I was called a Fox head or something to that effect because the interview happened to be on Fox news. I also had Nate Silver thrown in my face as being more accurate. I bet the people who replied to my post with that one are regretting it now. Or maybe not. Some people have no shame.

As far as the polls go basically the only polls saying Hillary would win are the ones that way over sampled democrats. The polls that didn't over sample very much or at all went towards Trump. I was attacked a couple weeks ago for pointing that out also. The pollsters didn't make a mistake. They intentionally rigged the polls to give the illusion that Trump didn't have a chance to get his supporters to stay home. It didn't work though. This election was not an upset. Anyone who looked at the methodology of the polls could see Trump was likely to win weeks ago.

[jg121783 3,915]

By the way I have been having a good laugh every time I see this NY Times prediction graph:

[Dashinka 24,505]

Although I cannot find a refererence, I had heard the polls from Trafalgar Group were fairly accurate. Apparently they asked one unique question "who is your neighbor backing?". They claimed this helps uncover hidden support for a candidate that people don't want to admit supporting.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Good grief. All this nostalgia!!!

What happened to policies???? These are interesting times.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Here are some insights as to how and why most of the pollsters blew it:

Analysis continues here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/09/what_happened_last_night_was_obvious_but_the_experts_didn_t_want_to_see_it

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Seventy percent of the people in this country told the pollsters, who refused to listen. The pollsters refused to see the crowds. The pollsters refused to assign legitimacy to anything having to do with Trump, including his voters.

The pollsters have made the biggest mess of their business in the history of their business. Every pollster except two -- well, three -- got this totally wrong because of their own closed-mindedness, because of their own bigotry. The people voting for Donald Trump have been there since July of last year. What they think has been out there since July of last year, who they are and what they care about. You can learn about it, you could know it since July of last year.

The numbers don't back this theory though. It's very clear that the overall number of the republican vote was almost identical to the last two presidential elections, while the democrats were down approx. 6 million from 2012 and 10 million from 2008. The dems didn't get out to vote in the numbers they usually do.

[bcking 3,157]

The numbers don't back this theory though. It's very clear that the overall number of the republican vote was almost identical to the last two presidential elections, while the democrats were down approx. 6 million from 2012 and 10 million from 2008. The dems didn't get out to vote in the numbers they usually do.

Exactly.

He won "traditional blue" states with less people voting for him than Romney had 4 years ago in those states when Romney lost those states. It was a low democratic turnout issue, especially in key states that democratics may have thought didn't matter since they were "solid".