Agree... It's helpful to keep this old book in mind when reading what someone has "proved" with a set of numbers.
Posted on 10/16/2016 7:29:54 PM PDT by Helicondelta
If you recently glanced at the polls and the election markets, then you would be forgiven to believe that a landslide election is looming. It's likely not, and the spreads have the potential to revert in surprising ways between now and Election Day. The drumbeat of negative news against Donald Trump may not cause further damage. We've discussed numerously, starting on October 11 and 12, that Hillary Clinton's runaway spread would revert.
...
In historical polling data people tend to make up their mind for candidates, and rarely does it lead to further subtractions from current polling levels. It is doubtful therefore that somehow any new negative information about Donald would compel someone, at long last in these final weeks, to ultimately switch allegiances. And while the theory of poll of polls works great to reduce the variance of errors, it does nothing to counter any systematic errors we may see hurtling through in the current election cycle. This is a significant lesson that remains lost among political hacks keen to simply analyze the data.
Another note is that you should be wary of taking too seriously the political advice of people who so recently badly errored in the Primary elections! This is not to cast a spotlight on any one individual, since the entire field of data journalism just saw a catastrophic result over the past year. But it's clear from the polling and the prediction betting market levels that the grave lessons from the past have not yet been learned. This summer's Brexit vote was just another example of election-eve overconfidence by pollsters and bookies. But stateside we do see the promotion of false confidence on preposterous polling statistics. The media ratings pursuit must inherent some blame, since news demands easily digestible insight that crookedly beguiles their patrons.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
“e.g. How many refused to answer. % is needed What percentage responded ?”
IMO Libs tend to be blabbermouths while conservatives are either too busy or privacy-minded to respond to strangers asking questions... I’m convinced there’s a HUGE silent majority out there!!!
Stay in touch jennychase. Keep posting.
We can use some expertise on our side..
Bookmark
Agree... It's helpful to keep this old book in mind when reading what someone has "proved" with a set of numbers.
It will all come down to turnout: which candidate can motivate people to show up at the polls and vote.
For inner-city Dems, it's less of a question of motivation: knock and drag teams WILL get their people to the polls in massive numbers, and every Dem in their districts (whether dead, alive, or moved away) WILL vote for Clinton (whether legitimately, or by somebody voting in their names).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.