- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 49,645
- Reaction score
- 12,505
Part of it could be dishonesty. Another could just be ignorance or bias. There are different ways each of them got to that number and some may have been flawed. Even if it wasn't flawed, the rust belt polling data a large swing from what we had and they build their certainty on that info. Some of those instances are a 1 in 10 chance which means every 1 on 10 times Trump wins. for us now, that's hard to fathom since he did win. It's like the Bernie blowout in Michigan. He had a 1% chance of winning and he did. That may seem ridiculous until you look at the number of state primaries and the last time the polling data swung that far and it was over 100 primaries ago which makes sense for a 1 in 100 chance
Maybe, but the numbers this election cycle didn't seem to be based in reality. You said it yourself, Trump was hitting 1 in 10 in Rust Belt states but he hit them repeatedly, in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, in Michigan. Same thing with Bernie, lol 1 in 100. That is absurd. They were tilting the playing field repeatedly the entire cycle, and always in favor of the same person, Hillary Clinton. Always in favor of Hillary whether it be super delegates, or media coverage, and even in the debates by giving her debate questions ahead of time, always in favor of Hillary. I can't see how the polls would be any different. They seem tilted as fuck. I will leave open the possibility that I'm full of shit though, maybe I'm just wrong.