2020 Election MEGAthread

[Woke Locc]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think our left friends didn't see the obvious connections between 2016 and 2020 polls. Here, let's try that again =)

"Oof them dern facts again."

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Danth]

The coastal city "elite" thinking Clinton had even a ghost of a chance here in Ohio shows how out of touch the coastal city folks were in their selfmade echo chambers. Driving around in '16 I might've seen one Clinton campaign sign for every 100 Trump signs. Clinton is utterly despised around here due to NAFTA essentially selling out the region and ruining the economy. It still hasn't truly recovered. In no world would she ever have won here. The state would've voted for Beelzebub before it voted for Clinton. The poll with Biden is more accurate, I think. He isn't hated here the way Clinton was. As of today I'd say the state feels like it could swing either way.

Danth

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Woke Locc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I got an FBSS on my first frenzy kill, 10% drop rate is clearly incorrect. Lol at "polls are wrong" crowd.

[Pretzelle]

itt: people who don't understand polling, statistics, and probability.

Trump '16 was an anomaly. Do you think the people that forecast these things haven't updated their algorithms? That they're just hoping 2016 was a fluke and their numbers and formulas are fixed?

Keep telling yourself that Trump is in a safe space. The only way he wins this is by election fraud and theft through the Supreme Court that he stole.

Biden 2020 - Pack the courts, baby.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Pretzelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

iTrump '16 was an anomaly. Do you think the people that forecast these things haven't updated their algorithms? That they're just hoping 2016 was a fluke and their numbers and formulas are fixed?

This depends on your opinion of the purpose of the published polls. If you feel they're as accurate as the pollsters can make them, then you have the correct assessment. On the other hand, a person who believes the polls are nothing more than pro-leftist propaganda designed to discourage and demoralize right-leaning voters in effort to reduce their turnout would not likely see it as any different than '16.

I tend to take your side of it. Biden himself is not despised across middle america the same way the Clintons are. I do not know that he necessarily WILL win in this state, but he at least CAN. Clinton had no chance at all--anyone who actually lives here knew as much--and the polling saying otherwise illustrated that something was broken in the system. The present poll linked above calls it more or less a toss-up here in OH right now, and that's about how it feels "on the ground" as well.

Danth

[BarnabusCollins]

If you still riding the democrat vs republican train, you're the sucker. They got you.

[Castle2.0]

This is hilarious. You miss the point.

The 85-15 odds would have made sense if:

1. If it was a CLOSE victory. It wasn't. 304-227 electoral votes.
2. If there were only a FEW polls that were wrong. They were wrong on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and those were just the ones I looked at.
3. The polls were SLIGHTLY off. They weren't. Wisconsin 7.6 points, Wisconsin 9.3 points, Pennsylvania 7.9 points, Ohio 10.7 points, North Carolina 6.1 points.

Key Point
The media wasn't just wrong on their 85-15 odds. The reason they had 85-15 was because their polling was hugely inaccurate. See point #3. If they haven't fixed how they poll, they will get the same inaccurate polling data and inaccurate odds they did last time.

Key Question
What significant changes have been made to their polling methods to get more accurate results? Please provide evidence of before and after.

/thread

P.S. I've taken a masters level stats class. I know how stats work. We all know an unlikely even can occur. That's not the issue. The issue is their polling was hugely off in multiple polls, and there was been no improvement to their polling methods since. Adding more data ain't gonna help a bad model or bad methodology.

[Mota]

100k votes across three states to flip the election isn't a close election because electoral college scoreboard... sure buddy.

[Castle2.0]

You musta forgot to read.

Wrong on the following states by the following percentage points:

Wisconsin 7.6 points
Wisconsin 9.3 points
Pennsylvania 7.9 points
Ohio 10.7 points
North Carolina 6.1 points

Slice n dice how you like, but being off by 6-10 percentage points across multiple polls/states, means those polls are useless as a predictor. They claim 3% margin of error, lol. Throwing darts mighta been more accurate.

Which comes back to the key question.

What significant changes have been made to their polling methods (from 2016 to 2020) to get more accurate results? Please provide evidence of before and after.

[Pretzelle]

I'm not doing your homework for you.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...t-anyone-else/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/methodology/