Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: apillar
Yup - agreed. They did the same thing in 1996 and Dole still lost by a lot but by nearly 10% less

From wikileaks 1996:

Some post-election debate focused on the alleged flaws in the pre-election polls, almost all of which overstated Clinton's lead over Dole, some by a substantial margin. For example, a CBS/New York Times poll overstated Clinton's lead by 10 points despite having an error margin of 2.4%. The odds against this sort of error occurring were 15,000:1.[27] A less extreme example was a Pew poll that overstated Clinton's lead by 5 points, the chances of this happening were 10:1 against.[27] Gerald Wasserman, having examined eight pre-election polls, argued that pure chance would produce such a skewed result in favor of Clinton only once in 4,900 elections.[28] However, because Clinton won the election by a comfortable margin,[29] there was no major reaction towards the inaccuracy of the polls.[29] The polls were also less inaccurate than the overwhelming majority of those taken in 1948,[29] which predicted that losing candidate Thomas Dewey would beat President Harry Truman by a comfortable margin,[29] and in 1980, which predicted that Reagan would win without a landslide victory.[29]"

24 posted on 10/23/2016 5:43:22 AM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: rb22982

Hillary’s lead is within MOE. Basically, if she’s not outside of it, she will likely lose.

Don’t look for the MSM to include the disclaimer in its broadcast and print stories.


28 posted on 10/23/2016 5:45:46 AM PDT by goldstategop ((In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson