Author Topic: Taking all bets on Trump winning 2020 Election. (Read 44199 times)

CountValentine · « **Reply #340 on:** November 11, 2020, 05:15:28 PM »

"On the one hand, I don't entirely understand the polls-were-wrong storyline. This year was definitely a little weird, given that the vote share margins were often fairly far off from the polls (including in some high-profile examples such as Wisconsin and Florida). But at the same time, a high percentage of states (likely 48 out of 50) were 'called' correctly, as was the overall Electoral College and popular vote winner (Biden). And that's usually how polls are judged: Did they identify the right winner?"

@yuneeq

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/nate-silver-dismisses-the-polls-were-wrong-storyline-from-2020-election/ar-BB1aUWnb

Ergel · « **Reply #341 on:** November 11, 2020, 05:51:33 PM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/podcasts/the-daily/election-polls-biden-trump.html
Nate Cohn had some very good analysis. An extremely different take than the other Nate

yuneeq · « **Reply #342 on:** November 11, 2020, 07:27:35 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on November 11, 2020, 05:15:28 PM

"On the one hand, I don't entirely understand the polls-were-wrong storyline. This year was definitely a little weird, given that the vote share margins were often fairly far off from the polls (including in some high-profile examples such as Wisconsin and Florida). But at the same time, a high percentage of states (likely 48 out of 50) were 'called' correctly, as was the overall Electoral College and popular vote winner (Biden). And that's usually how polls are judged: Did they identify the right winner?"

@yuneeq

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/nate-silver-dismisses-the-polls-were-wrong-storyline-from-2020-election/ar-BB1aUWnb

From the source "On the other hand, evaluating how close the polls came to the actual vote share margins is a better way to judge polls, so I’m glad that people are doing that."

The margin error was so large that if the error happened in a couple more competitive states the presidency would be Trumps. It was simple luck that the error only changed the results in a few states.

CountValentine · « **Reply #343 on:** November 11, 2020, 07:35:02 PM »

Call what you want (luck) but anytime you want to bet against a major poll outside the MOE you know where to find me.

yuneeq · « **Reply #344 on:** November 11, 2020, 11:51:08 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on November 11, 2020, 07:35:02 PM

Call what you want (luck) but anytime you want to bet against a major poll outside the MOE you know where to find me.

It's the same view I've held for awhile now. Had the following pre-election article semi-read in a tab, think you may find it interesting:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/30/trump-chances-polling-433657

"Trump’s chances hinge on a polling screw-up way worse than 2016"
Guess what, the polling screw-up was in fact way worse.

CountValentine · « **Reply #345 on:** November 11, 2020, 11:54:28 PM »

Quote from: yuneeq on November 11, 2020, 11:51:08 PM

It's the same view I've held for awhile now. Had the following pre-election article semi-read in a tab, think you may find it interesting:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/30/trump-chances-polling-433657

"Trump’s chances hinge on a polling screw-up way worse than 2016"
Guess what, the polling screw-up was in fact way worse.

Didn't check the article but here is how I looked at it. 2016 Trump just won. If Biden had a bigger lead than HRC did then he would just win.

yuneeq · « **Reply #346 on:** November 12, 2020, 12:29:42 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on November 11, 2020, 11:54:28 PM

Didn't check the article but here is how I looked at it. 2016 Trump just won. If Biden had a bigger lead than HRC did then he would just win.

That's because you were assuming the same/similar error will occur, however if a theoretical time-traveler guaranteed an even larger error will occur, you wouldn't make the same assumption, would you? That being said,

Quote from: aygart on September 24, 2020, 11:14:22 AM

Just because things turned out a certain way doesn't mean you were right

CountValentine · « **Reply #347 on:** November 12, 2020, 12:34:57 AM »

Quote from: yuneeq on November 12, 2020, 12:29:42 AM

That's because you were assuming the same/similar error will occur, however if a theoretical time-traveler guaranteed an even larger error will occur, you wouldn't make the same assumption, would you? That being said,

Yes I assume the same error of undercounting Trump supports.
As far as the other members quote. It gets blown out of the water when you (polls) are right most of the time.
I will out my money on the polls. That is all I am saying.

yuneeq · « **Reply #348 on:** November 12, 2020, 12:38:24 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on November 12, 2020, 12:34:57 AM

Yes I assume the same error of undercounting Trump supports.
As far as the other members quote. It gets blown out of the water when you (polls) are right most of the time.
I will out my money on the polls. That is all I am saying.

At least in regards to Trump elections (which is probably the only time anyone here really cared about polls), the polls seem to be way off the mark, even getting worse after having 4 years to adjust. I consider the polls 0/2 in Trump elections, and you would say 1/2. If I had to agree, 2016 would the 1 time they got it right.

CountValentine · « **Reply #349 on:** November 12, 2020, 12:41:28 AM »

Quote from: yuneeq on November 12, 2020, 12:38:24 AM

At least in regards to Trump elections (which is probably the only time anyone here really cared about polls), the polls seem to be way off the mark, even getting worse after having 4 years to adjust.

Last time they got the winner wrong. This time they got the winner right. Everyone thought last time was a slam dunk and this time the projection was for a tight race.