Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Let's be clear on 2016 Polling
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 60
| visibility 1

Let's be clear on 2016 Polling


Jun 12, 2019, 2:09 PM

I keep hearing how the polling data from the 2016 Presidential race was wrong.

Quite the contrary, polling data from likely voters projected Clinton winning the election
by approximately 2.1% (Clinton 48.2%, Trump 46.1%; Real Clear Politics Final Avg. of all polls)

In the election, Clinton won 2.1% of the popular vote, making the poll avg. dead on accurate. Clinton won 2.87 million more votes than Trump.

Trump won by the electoral college vote. This came about as a result of upsets in 3 Rust Belt states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

According to the Mueller report, Rick Gates, Dept.Trump Campaign manager was directed by Paul Manafort to share internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, with connections to both Oleg Derispaska and Russian intelligence, on you guessed it, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

Ultimately, the polls were accurate. Their prediction of the voting tally was dead on.

So let's all try to get over the whole "All the polls were wrong" Sean Hannity crap.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Facts are stubborn things;


Jun 12, 2019, 2:19 PM

and its a fact that John Adams was a short, fat, bald man with a tendency to anger. In other words, he was the perfect fit Marisa Tomei

.

.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I don't remember any polls saying Trump would be president


Jun 12, 2019, 2:20 PM

Do you?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

maybe


Jun 12, 2019, 2:23 PM

Anne Coulter's pole

.i

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I don't remember any polls saying Trump would be president


Jun 12, 2019, 8:05 PM [ in reply to I don't remember any polls saying Trump would be president ]


Do you?



Yes, the Business Daily (IBD) and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence (TIPP) had in their final poll that Trump would win the election by 4%. It was dead wrong.

You have to remember that Election Polling is based on votes, not the electoral college.

It was the only major poll that got it wrong.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


So you're saying that someone who predicted Trump


Jun 13, 2019, 8:16 AM

would win was wrong, but those who predicted he would lose were right?

you don't bet on this kind of thing, do you?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So you're saying that someone who predicted Trump


Jun 14, 2019, 12:46 AM


would win was wrong, but those who predicted he would lose were right?

you don't bet on this kind of thing, do you?



No offense, but I hope you got out of the 7th grade ok 'cause maff isn't your strong suit.

The polls DON'T predict who wins an election, they merely predict how many voters will vote for each candidate.

The polls predicted that Clinton would win 2.1% more vote than Trump did. \

Clinton won 2.1% more votes than Trump.

Now pundits will look at polls and proclaim who they think will win, of course. But the polls themselves DO NOT PREDICT WINNERS, THEY ONLY PREDICT NUMBERS OF VOTE.

If you can't discern the difference to those 2 concepts then you need to stay out of the Balmsters weed patch. Hell, after toking one, Balm1 predicted that Will Farrel would win!

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Felix Felix.


Jun 13, 2019, 1:06 PM [ in reply to Re: I don't remember any polls saying Trump would be president ]

That's akin to claiming Bama won 16-44 because they had better stats.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

AT THIS TIME in 2016


Jun 12, 2019, 2:21 PM

USA Today/Suffolk 6/26 - 6/29 1000 LV 3.0 39 35 8 3 Clinton +4
PPP (D) 6/27 - 6/28 947 RV 3.2 45 41 5 2 Clinton +4
IBD/TIPP 6/24 - 6/29 837 RV 3.5 37 36 9 5 Clinton +1
Reuters/Ipsos 6/25 - 6/29 1247 RV 2.8 42 31 5 4 Clinton +11
Quinnipiac 6/21 - 6/27 1610 RV 2.4 39 37 8 4 Clinton +2
ABC News/Wash Post 6/20 - 6/23 836 RV 4.0 47 37 7 3 Clinton +10
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/19 - 6/23 1000 RV 3.1 39 38 10 6 Clinton +1
Reuters/Ipsos 6/18 - 6/22 1339 RV 2.8 43 34 6 5 Clinton +9
CNN/ORC 6/16 - 6/19 891 RV 3.5 42 38 9 7 Clinton +4
Monmouth 6/15 - 6/19 721 LV 3.7 44 37 9 4 Clinton +7
Reuters/Ipsos 6/11 - 6/15 1323 RV 2.8 39 29 6 4 Clinton +10

I'll let the numbers and the link speak for itself.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: AT THIS TIME in 2016


Jun 12, 2019, 8:18 PM

"At this time" the polls were all over the place. This inacuracy is easily explainable because all the campaigns were all over the place which much information yet to be considered. I would imagine that the most recent, current polls have part of the same problem. People tend to finalize their voting decisions after gathering more information. History has shown that generally speaking races tend to tighten the closer to election day approaches. The more info that arrives and the performance in canvasing, debates and over all press tends to focus voters.

An argument could be made that if the elections were held that week. It would have likely reflect the results of the polls that week.

Further, the earlier polls included Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the mix. Those 2 had far less impact on the final polls the closer election day drew near.

Yours is a fair point and I suspect the polls will tighten the closer to election day. Hopefully 18 or 20 Dem candidates will concede.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


distinction w/o difference?


Jun 12, 2019, 2:25 PM

popular vote is meaningless as we've seen time and again.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: distinction w/o difference?


Jun 12, 2019, 8:02 PM


popular vote is meaningless as we've seen time and again.



Actualy I'm a little surprised by your position. "One man, one vote" is the very fountainhead of our Democracy and the fundamental basis of our Democratic system.

In our history only 4 elections have produced a President who didn't secure a majority of the popular vote: 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

A distinction without a difference? The voting franchise is what has set America apart from most of the countries in world history. It is the corner freedom by which we are able to express and maintain all of our freedom, it is this freedom that provides the basis from which all other freedoms exist.

We honor the veterans who died fighting to defend our freedoms, and maintain our right to self government. I hate to think their deaths were "meaningless".

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: distinction w/o difference?


Jun 13, 2019, 7:55 AM

wonder how many illegals voted in CA alone. I bet over 3 million.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

P&R foul...


Jun 13, 2019, 8:12 AM [ in reply to Re: distinction w/o difference? ]

CA was pointing out that our President is elected by the Electoral College, not a popular vote, and you turned it into him disregarding our troops dying. Come on, man.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I would argue that our federal system sets us apart


Jun 13, 2019, 8:57 AM [ in reply to Re: distinction w/o difference? ]

Our system is highly unique and has allowed the "melting pot" to function rather than become Balkanized. A pure democracy or even parliamentary system would be destined to fail on these shores.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Trump brought voters to the polls that hadn't typically


Jun 12, 2019, 2:30 PM

voted and weren't reflected in polls.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Trump brought voters to the polls that hadn't typically


Jun 12, 2019, 8:38 PM

tdrake® said:

voted and weren't reflected in polls.



There is no way to prove that. But assuming it's true, Trump still did not get more votes than Hillary, in spite of the voters Trump may have turned out.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Hillary ignored key swing states because of polling numbers


Jun 13, 2019, 8:57 AM

in those states. (The polling numbers were wrong.) So - yes - polls can be wrong.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Yes, she ignored those states.


Jun 13, 2019, 10:46 AM

And by visiting them Trump brought more voters out on election day.

Not sure that makes the polling numbers wrong, but you've got to actually get them to vote. Trump had more motivated voters in the key states.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


No way to prove that?


Jun 13, 2019, 10:48 AM [ in reply to Re: Trump brought voters to the polls that hadn't typically ]

I thought that was what exit polling showed, as well as voter registration numbers.

Hillary didn't inspire voters, Trump did.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Trump brought voters to the polls that hadn't typically


Jun 13, 2019, 12:01 PM [ in reply to Trump brought voters to the polls that hadn't typically ]

The polls were dead on and your hot take is that the polls didn't account for a bunch of voters.

Good God, there is no hope for humanity.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not sure what you read.


Jun 13, 2019, 12:13 PM

Polls are different than votes. Polls are predictive. Votes are what matters. Polls are likely voters and not actual votes/voters.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I believe that a lot of people were...


Jun 13, 2019, 1:09 PM [ in reply to Trump brought voters to the polls that hadn't typically ]

not being completely honest because Trump supporters were called out on social media and by the MSM as racist, one of the phobes or had some 'ism.' It's as if they looked for people to put in that basket of deplorables.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

so what are you trying to say or prove here?***


Jun 12, 2019, 2:38 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


"The polls were right, even if they were wrong"


Jun 12, 2019, 2:40 PM

~News media, 2016

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: "The polls were right, even if they were wrong"


Jun 12, 2019, 8:40 PM


~News media, 2016




That simply isn't true. None of the polls said Hillary Clinton will be President, they only said that she would get 2.1% more votes than Trump.

And that's precisely what happened.

This really isn't a hard concept to grasp.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


So what is your point with all this?***


Jun 13, 2019, 9:02 AM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That there are


Jun 14, 2019, 5:40 AM

Titsona boar hog.

-Doc

2005_ncaa_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I've been wrong two times, but this isn't one of them.


Re: so what are you trying to say or prove here?***


Jun 12, 2019, 8:37 PM [ in reply to so what are you trying to say or prove here?*** ]

I'm highlighting the accuracy of the final voter polls in the 2016 election were dead on accurate.

It's simply a counter point to the Fox News crowd who don't seem to understand votes vs. the electoral college. They seem to conclude that the polls, which predicted the votes for Clinton were wrong because Trump won. They don't understand that the polls were accurate in predicting the vote count, which were accurate. In fact, Trump won the Presidency because of the upsets in 3 states, no other reason.

But those love to regurgitate Sean Hannity and the Right wing media, don't seem to understand what polls measure. They measure potential votes, not the electoral college. They are different entirely.

The polls were accurate, they predicted that Clinton would receive 2.1% more votes than Trump....which is exactly what she did.

What's missing from this conversation is any semblance of concern that the Trump campaign provided internal polling data to a hostile foreign government which in turn heavily targeted those very state with misinformation in an effort to help Trump.

These facts are not in dispute.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


So how much of the news media said they thought


Jun 13, 2019, 9:05 AM

Trump would win?

All those folks that were crying on election night? The "whitelash" guy? Anybody on MSNBC?

If you're really saying the polls were right and Foxnews viewers are wrong, maybe you need to spread that net a little wider and say that a majority of people who were following and predicting the election thought Hillary would win, and they were wrong.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Political polls show the same thing Tigernet Ads show


Jun 12, 2019, 2:42 PM

whatever you want to see.

badge-donor-10yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

John 3:16; 14:1-6


Re: Political polls show the same thing Tigernet Ads show


Jun 12, 2019, 8:44 PM

HuntClub® said:

whatever you want to see.



In some cases sure, if my wife, who is Domincan, took a poll on how many American's preferred Mofongo to fried chicken. Odds are pretty good that the poll would be biased toward Mofongo. The people who said they'd never tried it...would have to be removed from the poll.

So yes, all polls are not the end all be all. There are some outliers. Rasmussen is one.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


fivethirtyeight covered this in-depth....


Jun 12, 2019, 3:09 PM

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/

"On average since 1972, polls in the final 21 days of presidential elections have missed the actual margins in those races by 4.6 percentage points, almost exactly matching the 4.8-point error we saw in 2016. As we tried to emphasize before the election, it didn’t take any sort of extraordinary, unprecedented polling error for Trump to defeat Clinton. An ordinary, average polling error would do — one where Trump beat his polls by just a few points in just a couple of states — and that’s the polling error we got."

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yes, if a poll says Clinton 44- Trump 43, with a margin


Jun 12, 2019, 3:30 PM

of error or 3 points, and Trump wins 44-42, then the poll was "correct". Not "wrong".

(In reality, the poll just says literally that 44% of respondents to the poll said they were voting for Clinton, an objective fact that is neither "right" or "wrong".)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: fivethirtyeight covered this in-depth....


Jun 14, 2019, 12:37 AM [ in reply to fivethirtyeight covered this in-depth.... ]

deweather said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/

"On average since 1972, polls in the final 21 days of presidential elections have missed the actual margins in those races by 4.6 percentage points, almost exactly matching the 4.8-point error we saw in 2016. As we tried to emphasize before the election, it didn’t take any sort of extraordinary, unprecedented polling error for Trump to defeat Clinton. An ordinary, average polling error would do — one where Trump beat his polls by just a few points in just a couple of states — and that’s the polling error we got."



I dont understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

The polls didn't predict that Clinton or Trump would win. They predicted voting turnout and Tally, Not who ultimately would win.

They predicted Clinton would garner more than 2.1% of the actual vote count and that's precisely what happened.

Ignorant people still love to cling to "Polls said Clinton would win but Trump won so the polling was wrong. Polls don't predict winners (electoral college decides) polls predict actual popular votes

Excuse me while I beat my head against the wall.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


People who think the polls were very wrong in 2016...


Jun 12, 2019, 3:21 PM

Don't have a full grasp of statistics, in my opinion.

Same goes for whoever looked at those polls in 2016 and thought they meant that Clinton was sure to win.

The polls say what they say. Nothing more, nothing less. We tend to extrapolate out of them too much, to fit what we want them to say.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So how many did YOU see that said Trump would win?***


Jun 12, 2019, 3:39 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Polls do not say "who will win".


Jun 13, 2019, 6:14 AM

Unless you want them to say that. I don't choose to look at polls that way.

So, I didn't see any polls that told me Trump would win, or that Clinton would win.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What do they say?***


Jun 13, 2019, 8:51 AM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If a poll says that 44% of respondents would vote for


Jun 13, 2019, 10:33 AM

Trump, then the poll doesn't say that 44% of people will vote for Trump. It says that 44% of the people in that particular survey said they would. And that's all it says. Anything else is a conclusion people are free to draw from it, if they choose. Obviously, it's not a bad thing to draw conclusions. But it's not the poll's fault if people draw the wrong conclusion. The poll numbers are just numbers.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Let's us a sports example...


Jun 13, 2019, 10:38 AM

Steph Curry has shot 45% from three point land in a season. In Game 7 of the Finals, his coach draws up a play for him to shoot a three for the winning basket, and one of the reasons he decides to do that is that 45% statistic. Curry misses the shot. Well, the fact that Curry was a 45% shooter was not wrong. That's just a factual number. But it turned out that this particular shot was one of the 55% that doesn't go in.

Keep in mind I am not defending a certain party or a certain candidate here. As I said elsewhere, anyone who looked at the polls and used them to say Clinton would surely win was using the polls improperly. I am defending mathematics here, and statistics. Because I love those things. :)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I feel like reading the polls closer to the election


Jun 12, 2019, 4:28 PM [ in reply to People who think the polls were very wrong in 2016... ]

made me wonder why so many people were so confident that Hilary would win.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So what you're saying is.


Jun 12, 2019, 3:44 PM

National polls don't mean anything.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

GO TIGERS!!


Yes, the expressions of everyone onto covering the elections


Jun 12, 2019, 4:18 PM

tell me that clearly they knew this would happen.

:)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

To align current polling with polling at the same time for the 2016 election would mean you’d have to look at June 2015, at which time no poll showed Clinton with less than a 12 point lead over Trump:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

You’ll find similar results with Sanders vs Trump at that time.

Keep in mind almost all of us thought he was a laughable nut job. Now he’d be a laughable nut job with four years of experience and a track record of managing the economy well and not leading us into unnecessary skirmishes. (I hope!). At this rate, I don’t see how anyone can beat him, because the knowns are known...he’s a pig. You can’t do an October surprise on Trump. Every Democrat centrist will have to lean left to combat the wackos like Sanders and Warren, and they’ll have nothing to offer come the general election. Just my prediction...again, IF things progress as they have.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


Re: Let's be clear on 2016 Polling


Jun 12, 2019, 4:24 PM

The only poll that tracked the 2016 race accurately was the LA Times.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Let's be clear on 2016 Polling


Jun 12, 2019, 8:56 PM

MemphisCat said:

The only poll that tracked the 2016 race accurately was the LA Times.


The LA Times/Daybreak final poll showed that Trump would get that Trump would receive 3.2% more votes than Clinton.

They were dead wrong. Clinton received 2.1% more votes than Trump.

They were off by 5.3%.

You have to understand that polls predict votes, Clinton clearly go more votes than Trump.

The polls were accurate, LATimes poll was wrong.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Are you whining once again?***


Jun 12, 2019, 4:43 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2005_majors_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-xtiger.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Gotta feel sympathy for Butter's Wife.


Jun 12, 2019, 9:08 PM

She's battling him to wear the panties in that family.

-PhD

2005_ncaa_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I've been wrong two times, but this isn't one of them.


Re: Gotta feel sympathy for Butter's Wife.


Jun 12, 2019, 9:55 PM

Friend, you aren't good enough to be in the same room as my wife.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Political Polls should be ignored by everyone, always


Jun 12, 2019, 4:45 PM

1$ to spooneye

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If that makes you sleep at night...


Jun 12, 2019, 5:36 PM

with the state of the dems being total disarray...well, I'm happy for you.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That fact seems to have gone right over a lot of heads.***


Jun 12, 2019, 7:07 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Here's another fact that is hard for some to fathom.


Jun 12, 2019, 9:07 PM

Trump's in The Chair. Killary dropped like a dead woman on the floor.

-PhD

2005_ncaa_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I've been wrong two times, but this isn't one of them.


Re: Here's another fact that is hard for some to fathom.


Jun 12, 2019, 9:51 PM

That is one limited view. The point of this thread is to end the mantra that the polls wrongly predicted Clinton would win. They didn't, they only predicted she would get more votes...which she did. Polls don't predict outcomes, they predict voter counts.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Titsona boar hog.


Jun 14, 2019, 5:44 AM

Does that glaze your knuckles, Jr.?

-Nikola, PhD

2005_ncaa_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I've been wrong two times, but this isn't one of them.


Re: Here's another fact that is hard for some to fathom.


Jun 14, 2019, 12:51 AM [ in reply to Here's another fact that is hard for some to fathom. ]

Putin, Kim Jumg Il and Basheer Al Assad are in the chair as well.

Wonder if Clinton fell on their floors?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


DSH!!


Jun 14, 2019, 8:28 AM

-Doc Tesla

2005_ncaa_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I've been wrong two times, but this isn't one of them.


True but weren’t state polls in PA., WI, and MI off by a lot


Jun 13, 2019, 6:59 AM

?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-jospehg.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Wisconsin more than the others...


Jun 13, 2019, 8:24 AM

Pennsylvania was within the margin of error. Michigan was trending toward Trump, and the last one before the election did have Trump ahead.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html#polls

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So, overall the polling was accurate - but they were wrong


Jun 13, 2019, 8:53 AM

in individual states? That's still wrong. Especially when votes are tallied per state.

Are you going to tell me that the MSM and Dems weren't dancing in the aisles due to those polling numbers before the election? Did they forget about the Electoral College?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Hillary was polling at 50-Trump 32 about this time in '16.


Jun 13, 2019, 9:26 AM

2016.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 60
| visibility 1
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic