[Opinion] Why Trump is Going To Win Re-Election in 2020 - Tim Pool - Polidicks

You must have read different polls then because the ones i read at the time said stuff like 85% hillary 15% trump

Literally only the MSNBC poll said that

You're talking about two different things. 85% hillary 15% trump was referring to "Chance we think they have of winning" Hillary 3% more than Trump on average refers to "results of the polls and surveys" One is a derivative of the other + additional data. One has a bigger margin of error.

I know that this is % chance to win, but it was literally the first link in google, new york times. My argument is that there were polls like that, not all of them... and i understand people can be wrong but i doubt ever in the history of polling for the US president has there been such quantity of just wrong not even close polling result pulled out of some reporters ass as this one. And supposedly the techniques and sample sizes and amounts of polls have only increased. Im not claiming fraud or anything, but undoubtedly some people deserved some real stern talk over the future of their career. Stuff like this would flip elections under the right condition. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

Yeah, and they were wrong. As were pretty much everyone. Here's a follow-up by the nytimes you should read, since you seem to be pulling out of your ass the idea that polling is pulled "out of some reporters ass." It's a fucking massive article btw. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/upshot/a-2016-review-why-key-state-polls-were-wrong-about-trump.html At least three key types of error have emerged as likely contributors to the pro-Clinton bias in pre-election surveys. Undecided voters broke for Mr. Trump in the final days of the race, or in the voting booth. Turnout among Mr. Trump’s supporters was somewhat higher than expected. And state polls, in particular, understated Mr. Trump’s support in the decisive Rust Belt region, in part because those surveys did not adjust for the educational composition of the electorate — a key to the 2016 race. There’s nothing pollsters can do, for example, if undecided voters break for one candidate in the final hours. Even an error that puts more blame on the pollsters might be acceptable, provided it can be fixed. A postelection survey by Pew Research, and another by Global Strategy Group, a Democratic firm, re-contacted people who had taken their polls before the election. They found that undecided and minor-party voters broke for Mr. Trump by a considerable margin — far more than usual. Similarly, the exit polls found that late-deciding voters supported Mr. Trump by a considerable margin in several critical states. These three results imply that late movement boosted Mr. Trump by a modest margin, perhaps around two points. It’s hard to make a general statement about whether pollsters’ likely-voter screens, which try to determine which voters are likely to turn out, were biased toward Mrs. Clinton, since there are many different kinds of such screens. Education was a huge driver of presidential vote preference in the 2016 election, but many pollsters did not adjust their samples — a process known as weighting — to make sure they had the right number of well-educated or less educated respondents. https://i.imgur.com/fj0diVi.png

So the polls were very inaccurate, yes, that's my point, i agree.

Arguing with blizzerd over 2016 polls this place is fucking purgatory.

My objection was to the "pollsters pulling things out of their ass" idiocy. These people have forgotten more about polling and surveys than you will ever know, so at least a modicum of "hey maybe they aren't all incompetent sperglords" is in order.