patrick.net

If you only heard from MSM you’d think that the entire country had been captured by the Trump administration and that everyone is traumatized and devastated. Well, close to half of the population by number , and most of the country by region are quite pleased and in fact many are ecstatic that Trump won. For them it isn’t a disaster , and is closer to a miracle. They feel that Trump is attempting to address the issues that they think are important. Most areas of the country don’t vote Democratic, and don’t like Democratic policies, and don’t like liberals, and are sick and tired of the media acting like they don’t exist , and if they do exist , are nothing but uneducated , worthless hicks, and rednecks that don’t require or deserve representation. Well , they do exist, and Trump recognized them, and in America everybody gets to vote. So it turns out the conservative, non liberal areas of America do matter, even if the Dems and the media chose to ignore and denigrate them for many years.
So now that Trump won, we can test out all the doomsday scenario predictions of the Dems and Media shills. Did the stock market crash? No, quite the opposite. Trade war with Mexico or China. No. Tyrannical prosecution of political foes? No, again, quite the opposite. Etc.
Great to see the Democrats self destructing. Great to see Hillary’s deceptions and corruptions exposed. Great to see the economy disproving the manipulative press. Great to see Trump appointing respectable and capable cabinet members and appointees, such as Tillerson, Kelly, Gorsuch, Mattis, and Sessions. Great to see the sold out press being exposed!

My case is that the polling was proven to be inaccurate. Trump’s victory was evidence of the opinions and wishes of the US electorate. Despite all the scare tactics, the country hasn’t collapsed, the economy is improving in terms of employment numbers, Trump is pursuing stricter immigration policy, stricter illegal drug policy, has appointed a conservative, respected Supreme Court justice, has represented US political and trade interests more strongly, for example with respect to Iran and China. Trumps supporters can see what he’s done and know what he is up against. The media shills trying to convince the country that everyone in so disappointed have no case to make except that their discredited pollsters say so. Like I said, we can see what Trump has done, we can see what he’s trying to do, and we recognize the successes and respect the effort being made. We can also see what the Media and the pollsters have done and what they continue to try to do, and no one cares any more.

Not that ridiculous given that many diverse and supposedly independent interests were opposed to Trump, and the polling was virtually all both negative and inaccurate in its assessment of Trumps popularity and prospects. Might be hard to believe that all the pollsters are corrupted or at least highly unreliable in a very important situation, but there is a precedent for this now. Maybe they can make more money by selling out than being accurate? Let’s just see how the midterm elections turn out.

The polls were acccurate when it didn’t matter who won because the same people and organizations had their claws in both the Dems and the Republicans. Heads I win, tails you lose. As soon as a non Dem/Republican attempted to take the presidency , it turns out the media and the polls are on the same side, and it’s not Trump’s side. Look how unified all the past presidents are now. All uniformly disgusted and bewildered by what’s happening. They, the media, and the pollsters were all part of the same illusion of a balance of power and the fantasy that the electorate had a choice between two very different candidates. In fact there wasn’t much difference untill Trump came along. Now all of a sudden, Obama and Clinton are on the same side as the Bushes. Which is the same side as the MSM, and the pollsters. So, not surprising that this time the polls were monolithicly wrong. And not surprising if they still are.

anonymous says

"Trump is an extraordinary leader, perfect for the times" ????????????

President Trump Revealed He 'Never Knew We Had So Many Countries'

Beginning his Asian tour Saturday after touching ground in Japan, President Donald Trump detailed his high regard for the relationship between him and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe - and his apparent lack of knowledge about the number of countries in the world.

"So my relationship with Shinzo got off to quite a rocky start because I never ran for office, and here I am," Trump said at the dinner. "But I never ran, so I wasn’t very experienced. And after I had won, everybody was calling me from all over the world. I never knew we had so many countries."

http://www.ibtimes.com/president-trump-revealed-he-never-knew-we-had-so-many-countries-2611156

Sorry - this is not from the Onion, the Babylon Bee or any o...

It’s called humor.
There you go again putting down the electorate that put Trump in office, and buying in to the characterization of trump as unintelligent. Do this at your peril, Trump won the presidency. That’s how unintelligent he is.

I don't agree with everything, but I like the job he has done so far, and I hope he does a great job with future issues.

I know “you’re going to regret it”. That’s what you said before the election, and now you’re still saying it. We don’t regret it. We won’t regret it.
Great to have some fresh political leadership in America who isn’t beholden to the Democrats or Republicans, and their controllers. Trump may not be perfect, but he is not a sell out. Trump is trying to do what he believes is right for the country. He is standing up to the Democrats and the Republicans. He is standing up against the Chinese and the Iranians and the Europeans. He is representing the United States. You are missing it.

I know “you’re going to regret it”. That’s what you said before the election, and now you’re still saying it. We don’t regret it. We won’t regret it.
Great to have some fresh political leadership in America who isn’t beholden to the Democrats or Republicans, and their controllers. Trump may not be perfect, but he is not a sell out. Trump is trying to do what he believes is right for the country. He is standing up to the Democrats and the Republicans. He is standing up against the Chinese and the Iranians and the Europeans. He is representing the United States. You are missing it.

We need Trump to resurrect a Charles Bronson as an anti-Dworkin Golem. Can't somebody e-mail Trump the recipe conjuring for a Bronson Golem?

The Leftists and SJW types have proven that “incorrect” political speech(or even ideas) can have real world consequences for regular Americans. Many voters with something to lose decline to state their opinions publicly, preferring to make their voices heard at the ballot box where their “speech” is SECRET and effective.

I know that I don’t even participate in polls as a rule, so it’s not a stretch to think that others who mistrust the system do not either. And with all the hostility toward Trump supporters, voters clearly lie in exit polls to avoid stating their political beliefs.

We may think Trump is acting a fool now and then, but we’d stoll rather have him than Crooked Hillary or another of the elitist shills like Obama or a shrub we’ve been subjected to for decades.

PaisleyPattern says

My case is that the polling was proven to be inaccurate

And that's not even true. The polling error was about the same as usual. Much better on a national level, but a little worse on a state level.

The problem was the media didn't understand how to interpret the polling data correctly.

PaisleyPattern says

The electoral college vote was a blowout. The popular vote is irrelevant. Accurate polling should have predicted the result.

Nope--that's not how it works.

#1--polling is a lagging indicator as there is a time delay between gathering data, compiling it, and publicizing the results. In a dynamic system, where undecided voters are finally deciding, there will be error. In the case of the 2016 election, those undecided voters broke heavily for Trump.
#2--polling doesn't predict the electoral college.

National polls were pretty dead on actually. 2016 wasn't a failing of polling as much as it was a failing of talking heads that didn't understand probability and modeling.

Here's some data:



There were many, many more undecided voters than typical. Which leads to much higher error bar than typical. Unfortunately, most talking heads didn't grasp this.

Also, you'll note that polling was off about the same 3-4% in most other years. It just didn't swing the election in those years so nobody noticed.

Pols are meant to sway public opinion not reflect them.
80% of Trump voters wont give Polsters the time of day let alone our political opinion.
We're all under the full understanding that it would just be manipulated so we don't participate.
When you say we're at 20% we know that means 60%.

PaisleyPattern says

My point is that as a barometer and indicator of voter sentiment , the media and the pollsters they used dramatically discredited themselves in the 2016 elections.

And your point is clearly wrong. The data shows it to be absolutely incorrect.

Trump’s victory was evidence of the opinions and wishes of the US electorate

————

Less than 63 million out of 320 million citizens.
That’s not even 20% of the population.

How many of those 63 million are mindless pawns of The Church who only ever vote Republican?

Most Americans understand that the country was founded on the idea that there should be separation from The Church, and the State. Why do Christians hate America, Freedom, and The Constitution?

Sniper says

It was proven, over and over and over and over.

Nope--what was proven is that you don't understand polling methodology.

At a time of unprecedented party gridlock, an outsider beats both parties

—————

How do you figure? You realize Trump is a Republican. Republicans hold absolute power in all three branches.

The outsider was Bernie Sanders, and it’s proven fact that the media and both major parties, conspired against him, so much so, he never stood a chance, even though he had overwhelming support from the citizenry.

If what you suggest is true, that Trump was elected because Americans were sold on his campaign promises, then why would they be satisfied with his presidency? He hasn’t followed through with any of his campaign promises. Shouldn’t that make those people dissatisfied?

joeyjojojunior says

PaisleyPattern says

My point is that as a barometer and indicator of voter sentiment , the media and the pollsters they used dramatically discredited themselves in the 2016 elections.

And your point is clearly wrong. The data shows it to be absolutely incorrect.

I’m sure you can read the data and polls anyway you want. That is the nature of polling and statistics. However, there is no point trying to convince anyone that the media consensus and the popular interpretation of polling prior to the 2016 election wasn’t that Hillary had it locked up. It is entirely revisionistic to claim that the polling data was ambiguous.Media and polling worked together to present the public with an impression of the state of popular opinion in the United States. The media consistently made the case for Hillary having a substantial lead. As I recall, none of the polling organizations came out to contradict this consensus. This makes them complicit and discredits them

PaisleyPattern says

the popular interpretation of polling prior to the 2016 election was that Hillary had it locked up

This is correct. The interpretation overstated the actual lead Clinton had.

PaisleyPattern says

It is entirely revisionistic to claim that the polling data was ambiguous

Nope--smart people like Nate Silver said that before the election.

PaisleyPattern says

As I recall, none of the polling organizations came out to contradict this consensus

That's because polling companies do polls and put out the results. They don't interpret the polls or construct models based on the polls. Your beef is with the idiots that didn't realize a 3% swing towards Trump in a few select states (which is quite normal) would result in Trump winning.

joeyjojojunior says

PaisleyPattern says

the popular interpretation of polling prior to the 2016 election was that Hillary had it locked up

This is correct. The interpretation overstated the actual lead Clinton had.

PaisleyPattern says

It is entirely revisionistic to claim that the polling data was ambiguous

Nope--smart people like Nate Silver said that before the election.

PaisleyPattern says

As I recall, none of the polling organizations came out to contradict this consensus

That's because polling companies do polls and put out the results. They don't interpret the polls or construct models based on the polls. Your beef is with the idiots that didn't realize a 3% swing towards Trump in a few select states (which i...

No , polls can be, and often are, constructed to favor a particular outcome. That’s what happened in this case.

PaisleyPattern says

No , polls can be, and often are, constructed to favor a particular outcome. That’s what happened in this case.

All evidence to the contrary.

The polling error nationally was well within historical norms as I showed.

There was a much larger group of undecided voters than normal

Trump had been gaining for the last 3-4 days in almost all polling data.

When you look at the big picture, the result shouldn't be that surprising. Only because the idiots making the models gave such ridiculous odds was it so surprising.

Clinton- 66 million votes
Trump- 63 million votes

Seems similar to what the polls were saying

joeyjojojunior says

PaisleyPattern says

No , polls can be, and often are, constructed to favor a particular outcome. That’s what happened in this case.

All evidence to the contrary.

The polling error nationally was well within historical norms as I showed.

There was a much larger group of undecided voters than normal

Trump had been gaining for the last 3-4 days in almost all polling data.

When you look at the big picture, the result shouldn't be that surprising. Only because the idiots making the models gave such ridiculous odds was it so surprising.

What’s more likely is that after distorting polling results for the entire election year, the pollsters were attempting to save a scrap of face by calling it close near the finish. The electoral vote was 306 to 232. Not really very close either. The pollsters bear some blame.

errc says

Less than 63 million out of 320 million citizens.
That’s not even 20% of the population.

Children can vote now?

anon_f58c3 says

What’s more likely is that after distorting polling results for the entire election year, the pollsters were attempting to save a scrap of face by calling it close near the finish. The electoral vote was 306 to 232. Not really very close either. The pollsters bear some blame.

You really believe that every pollster was in on some massive scheme? And that they all agreed to move the needle at the end?

#takeoffthetinfoilhat

Sniper says

So, you're going to tell me there are 10% - 15% MORE Dem voters in the country, because this is what was being reported in the methodology in your so called "accurate" polls in 2016?

I'm not going to go over this again with you for the millionth time.. You are clearly too dim to understand.

anon_f58c3 says

What’s more likely is that after distorting polling results for the entire election year, the pollsters were attempting to save a scrap of face by calling it close near the finish. The electoral vote was 306 to 232. Not really very close either. The pollsters bear some blame.

They bear A LOT of blame, but in reality, they were just providing required data to their Masters that were paying for it.

In fact, the "experts" all had the Electoral College at the inverse of what it actually ended up being. That's a BIG miss!!

Sniper says

Come on Joey the TROLL. I outlined these issues over and over during the election. Why can't you just admit your Tribe is a bunch of dishonest people?

I go where the data takes me.. And in most cases, it leads to the opposite of whatever you are saying.

After an entire election year of hearing that Trumps candidacy is a joke, that he doesn’t even want to win, of Obama saying “Donald Trump is not going to be President “, that Trump has no path to the presidency, and then him winning a substantial victory, it’s pathetic and comical to hear the same shills claim that polling shows Trump has a 17% unfavorable rating. Unfavorable compared to what anyway? An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda? After decades of gridlock in DC. , Trump defeated the Democrats and the Republicans.Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds. People have and will continue to respond to this.

PaisleyPattern says

An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda?

Didn't Republicans turn obstructionism into a fine art form over the previous 8 years? Seemed to work OK for them, right?


PaisleyPattern says

Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds

What exactly is he leading on?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/
"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968."

joeyjojojunior says

PaisleyPattern says

An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda?

Didn't Republicans turn obstructionism into a fine art form over the previous 8 years? Seemed to work OK for them, right?


PaisleyPattern says

Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds

What exactly is he leading on?

Both parties were guilty of obstructionism. Trump isnt a Republican except in name, he only chose the Republican Party because he knew he could win more easily in that party. Past criticisms of the Republican Party aren’t relevant to Trump.
Trump is leading with respect to healthcare reform, immigration reform, reinvigorating the manufacturing sector in the US, creating more favorable trade policies, instituting pro growth tax reform. This is his agenda, it’s not all going to happen magically immediately. Also Trump is attempting to restore patriotism as a respectable ethic in the United States. He is attempting to inspire an optimistic and confident outlook in the American public. He is leading the attack to expose the very biased and manipulative media.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/
This was written BEFORE the election.

"Even at the end of a presidential campaign, polls don’t perfectly predict the final margin in the election. Sometimes the final polls are quite accurate. An average of national polls in the week before the 2008 election had Barack Obama winning by 7.6 percentage points. He won by 7.3 points. Sometimes, however, the polls miss by more. Four years ago, an average of survey results the week before the election had Obama winning by 1.2 percentage points. He actually beat Mitt Romney by 3.9 points.
If that 2.7-point error doesn’t sound like very much to you, well, it’s very close to what Donald Trump needs to overtake Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. She leads by 3.3 points in our polls-only forecast.
And 2012 isn’t an outlier. For presidential contests since 1968, here’s the average of national polls taken a week before the election compared with the final result."

joeyjojojunior says

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/
This was written BEFORE the election.

"Even at the end of a presidential campaign, polls don’t perfectly predict the final margin in the election. Sometimes the final polls are quite accurate. An average of national polls in the week before the 2008 election had Barack Obama winning by 7.6 percentage points. He won by 7.3 points. Sometimes, however, the polls miss by more. Four years ago, an average of survey results the week before the election had Obama winning by 1.2 percentage points. He actually beat Mitt Romney by 3.9 points.
If that 2.7-point error doesn’t sound like very much to you, well, it’s very close to what Donald Trump needs to overtake Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. She leads by 3.3 points in our polls-only forecast.
And 2012 isn’t an outlier. For president...

This is Silver hedging his bets.Throughout the campaign he constantly interpreted the polling as giving Trump approximately zero chance of winning.

I'm not sure I follow all the logic here. I think some are arguing the perception of the polls and others are arguing the accuracy of the polls. The polls were accurate based on the margin of error they list on each poll. Doesn't matter how they sample, most polls were within their own stated margin of error. So they admit there will be error and I think most polls were within that margin. I'm not sure what there is to question in that regards. No poll will ever be 100% accurate and I think we can all agree on that. Or at least I hope so.

The perception of the polls being accurate is another question altogether. I don't think you can co-mingle the perception of accurate polls with polls that were actually accurate by the standards of polling. The perception of the polls were skewed by people with agendas and it's your personal choice to soak it up or ignore it. You have to remember that this was a close race between two really bad candidates. Considering the voter remorse and negativity around the election, I'm actually surprised the margin of error on a lot of these polls didn't get blown out of the water.

I'll agree there's now a perception of polls being inaccurate and you're free to question that. I actually think it's good to question data and not just assume it's solid. I'll make a bet though right now. $1k on every single 2nd year major election (presidential and mid-terms). All Federal candidates (President, senators & house members). 5 Days before the election I get the poll leaders and you (anyone) get the field. Whoever wins the most races at the end of that years elections gets $1k from me or I get your $1k. I will make this bet with anyone, every election season until I run out of free cash on hand (I won't).

Gentle Reader,

Horrific or not, I've been entertained.

Regards,
Roidy

PaisleyPattern says

This is Silver hedging his bets.Throughout the campaign he constantly interpreted the polling as giving Trump approximately zero chance of winning.

No he didn't. Please go back and read Nate's writing. . He was banging the drum all season saying the models showing Trump with a 95% chance of winning were crap.

Seriously--you are 100% incorrect. Do some research on your own if you don't believe me.