2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPaper by scientist says raw exit polls point to Republican election rigging
http://www.opednews.com/articles/U-S-2016-Unadjusted-Exit-by-Ron-Baiman-2016-Elections_Exit-Polls-161208-153.htmlraging moderate
(4,502 posts)IOKIYAR.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Guess how improbable this is!
Now 2.83 million and an over 2% margin.
triron
(22,240 posts)using a simple binary model. Probably far less than that with a better model.
Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)Same shit, different story.
triron
(22,240 posts)did some similar analyses on The deviations of the raw exit polls and the actual vote in 2000.
Findings were analogous.
Of course naysayers point to it and say just shows unreliability of exit polls.
But exit polls are used in other countries' elections to determine validity.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)All it did was find additional votes for Trump. The other recounts went nowhere either because no evidence was turned up other than junk from questionable websites. I guess now the meme will be the recount was rigged. It's like if we aren't happy with things, it just has to be rigged.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)saying Trump was born in South Africa, not America, or some similar junk just like GOPers. Trump does remind me of one of those old South African apartheid supporters.
I'm just tired of all the conspiracies, accusations, excuses, etc. We lost. If we want to win next time, we need to show we deserve it and start working at the local level to stop gerrymandering which hurts or Congressional efforts. Don't think that makes a lot of difference with Prez though.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)than any apartheid supporter I ever knew, and I knew a lot, having grown up in South Africa. Many of them were hardliners, many were awful, but few were quite so out of touch with reality.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)i have a hard time thinking people voted for trump then turned and voted for the democratic governor.
mythology
(9,527 posts)When the polls close, pollsters dont adjust the data to match the official results. They use the official results from the relatively small number of polling places where they conducted interviews to refine their sample. For example, if their model assumed that 30 percent of voters at a polling place would be black, and that number actually turns out to be 20 percent, or 40 percent, then theyll weight the data accordingly. During this period, theyre also entering any surveys that were sent in late (again, this is all based on incomplete data).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/
Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.
2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, youll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)So it seems they were pretty nuts on.