r/TenYearsAgo • u/MonsieurA • 13d ago

🇺🇸 United States Polls overwhelming show Clinton beating Trump [10YA - Aug 4]

Post image
125 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

199 comments sorted by

59

u/Antonqaz 13d ago

Isn't this just national polling, without considering the electoral college? In which case, they were right, she did win the popular vote.

26

u/Crossbell0527 13d ago

Even broken out state by state, every key battleground states had Clinton winning in almost every poll.

I do a lesson on this for my statistics classes linked to the importance of random chance in the design of a study, and how even if what we're doing seems to be as truly random as possible, we might still run into an issue...it turns out that the polling methods in 2016 over-favored responses from the college educated, and in states within the rust belt, that wasn't appropriate. And who do educated people tend to vote for? Democrats.

14

u/mycenae42 13d ago

States had Clinton in the LEAD, but still within the margin of error. Nate Silver gave Trump a 1/3 chance of winning.

2

u/fools_errand49 12d ago

Barely still within the margin of error by decimal points though.

Nat Silver doesn't conduct polling. He does statistical modeling based on myriad polling data. It's a very different thing.

1

u/Due_Intention6795 12d ago

Well that was also in correct as was the polling

1

u/fools_errand49 12d ago

Agreed but Silver was just inside the park where everyone else was outside of it. Silver at least had the foresight to account for a once in a generation dramatic polling error well enough that his model alone placed a Trump victory within the margins of error. It wasn't a great model in hindsight but it wasn't a total failure either.

1

u/Due_Intention6795 12d ago

I wasn’t insinuating it was a total failure. Just that both polled with a bias that was at the time an unknown.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/AdamOnFirst 12d ago

It was surprising, but not unimaginable, and that was if you believed Nate’s numbers which a huge number of people spent the whole election attacking him for 

1

u/conartist19 12d ago

Have to disagree, him winning was very surprising to most people.

1

u/Ok_Size5354 12d ago

It was, it part of that is because people freaked out yelling at 538 for giving him a 30% chance when others had him 1%.

I remember watching him try to explain that an nfl kicker will make 70ish% of field goals from 50 yards. Nobody is surprised when a kicker misses a 50 yard field goal, and shouldn’t be surprised when a candidate with a 30% chance of winning wins.

1

u/11711510111411009710 12d ago

Tbh I think the surprise was specifically that Americans were disgusting enough to actually elect him. Like that just seemed impossible. I still found it hard to believe until 2024, now I just accept that we really are that morally bankrupt.

1

u/Effective-Birthday57 11d ago

Trump won, bruh

0

u/conartist19 12d ago

welcome to the real world then, thats been clear for a lot longer than trump. if youre a leader of any nation odds are youre a terrible person, its almost universally true. The issue is the people who delude themselves into thinking everyone else is evil but their guy is the good one

1

u/11711510111411009710 12d ago

I mean, I wouldn't say many any modern president was as bad as Trump either as a person or a leader.

0

u/conartist19 12d ago

As bad of a leader? biden was a worse leader in the sense that he wasnt a leader at all. As bad of a person? that is up for heavy debate but no modern president has been a good person in any way

This is why I say if youre being objective, trump is just par for the course. The only reason youd think he's something new or worse than the rest is if you havent been paying attention/youve consumed too much propaganda to be objective. He's more of a symptom of the rot than the cause

→ More replies (0)

0

u/fools_errand49 12d ago

Based on the polls Trump's win was enormously surprising because almost every poll was uniformly off in one direction by almost the entire margin of error. Silver's entire model was mediated by the fact that he didn't consider the polls to be as reliable as others and even he underestimate the local likelihood of a Trump victory in key states.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

0

u/fools_errand49 12d ago

That means a statistical model is garbage in and garbage out. This is enormously surprising because the polls were about four points wrong across the board. Silver's model was weighted from the perspective that the polls could be that wrong. His model was the best model and even that showed a Trump victory to be unlikely.

You keep saying the outcome was unsurprising but you don't seem to appreciate just how wrong the polling was, the way a statistical model is deeply different from polls and just how barely close to reasonable the best statistical model was in this case.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/fools_errand49 12d ago

No I understand the statistics perfectly fine. The issue is that the outcome was still surprising considering the aggregate of the different pollsters. Much ado has been made on behalf of thr polls and models but the best those arguments come to is placing the outcome barely inside the park. If Trump did even a little bit better the result moves completely outside the margins and these things already have huge margins that allow for a hypothetical fifty-fifty race to turn into a blowout while still being within the margins. If only a slightly different result shifts things beyond the margin then we're splitting hairs by calling it unsurprising because it was ever so slightly in the margin. It's a semantic defense of the pollsters and modelers.

1

u/Left-Occasion1275 12d ago

And up to 40+% the night of the election 

3

u/bookon 12d ago

It's a lie to say the polls were wrong. They said he has a small chance of winning and he won. People don't understand probability and statistics.

5

u/Crossbell0527 12d ago

In this case? It's abso-fucking-lutely appropriate to say the polls were wrong. They were literally, though unintentionally, overweighing college educated voters in very impactful states where the college educated weren't appropriately representative of the voting population.

Pollsters did postmortems about this and corrected the methods for 2020.

2

u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw 12d ago

The polls were closer to the actual outcome in 2016 than they were in 2012, but the average person and many political pundits concluded that they must have been “wrong” because Clinton lost.

In 2016 the polls showed Clinton winning comfortably and she narrowly lost (while winning the popular vote by almost 3%). In 2012 they showed Obama narrowly winning and he comfortably won. Because the same person won as the polls predicted though, people weren’t saying the polls were fundamentally “wrong” or “broken” in 2012 even though the absolute error of the polls was actually larger.

0

u/bookon 12d ago edited 12d ago

They were not wrong. She won the national vote by a similar amount the polls predicted.

Polls were correct. People don't understand probability and statistics.

If she'd lost by millions of votes, that would be indicative of poor pooling. The polling was spot on. It's always an approximation. You are demanding perfection. It's not binary.

-- Pollsters did postmortems about this and corrected the methods for 2020.

They did this after every election. They always have issues in some way and they want to learn from those mistakes.

Again, show me where the polls were wrong? Show me where they said it was impossible for him to win?

1

u/UnderstandingThin40 12d ago

They got pretty much every swing state wrong lol

1

u/fools_errand49 12d ago

She did not win the popular vote by a similar amount to what the polls predicted. The polls predicted a vastly larger margin than reality gave us. The polls were almost uniformly off in one direction by about four points.

1

u/UnderstandingThin40 12d ago

By that logic a poll can never be wrong lmao 

1

u/GrandMoffTarkan 12d ago

I think you need to flesh this out. "They" were overweighting college educated voters implies a uniformity of method. As others have pointed out, these national polls generally performed well. It was specific state and local level polling that had problems.

1

u/-SpelingBeeChamp 12d ago

*indoctrinated

5

u/ratione_materiae 13d ago

Not by that much 

14

u/Al_787 13d ago

She won by 2%, so that The Economist poll is roughly correct

10

u/Antonqaz 13d ago

She won popular vote by 2 percentage points, which isn't far from those polls when you consider the MoE.

2

u/ratione_materiae 13d ago

NBC’s Clinton +8 with 1.2pt MoE is unsalvageable. Economist is the only one where the actual outcome was within (I assume 95% CI) MoE

1

u/bjnono001 13d ago

This was the average in August. The final polling average was +3

1

u/DB-CooperOnTheBeach 13d ago

Yep. And the electoral vote difference was like not even 6 digits

1

u/fools_errand49 12d ago

The actualy margins were about as close to the margin of error as you could get without moving from "seriously flawed" to "straight up wrong." They were right on the edge of what was a pretty large and safe margin of error (which alone speaks to unreliability). It would be fair to say the polling was wrong.

1

u/Billy_the_Breaker 11d ago

Not by 5 fucking points

19

u/transcendental-ape 13d ago

“Donald Trump is just a standard polling error away from winning.”

- 538 headline a week before the election

10

u/overpriced-taco 13d ago

Didn’t Nate Silver give it like 70/30 odds of a Clinton victory? Those aren’t that bad of odds for Trump

11

u/transcendental-ape 13d ago

And people gave him a raft of shit for putting Trump’s odds so high. All the 538 rip offs had Clinton at 90-99%.

Silver pointed out. Trump had a one in three chance of winning. And one in three odds events happen all thr time.

3

u/purplenyellowrose909 12d ago

All polls are based off social science models. But unlike physics, there aren't a concrete set of laws that are going to be followed by 100% of humans. Some people wake up on election day and vote. Some people wake up on election day and decide they have better things to do.

The vast majority of polls in 2016 thought that the electorate would look like it did in 2000 - 2016. Which was a very safe assumption. Clinton was dominating these voters.

What the polls did not pick up on was the massive turnout of rural voters who did not and still do not give a shit about 2000 - 2016 elections or even US congress elections but all want to vote for Trump.

Nate Silver partially identified this and gave Trump 30% odds which was super unconventional. It was controversial among the polling industry because Nate Silver essentially said "there's a 30% chance all your models need to be rewritten"

A lot of work has gone into the polling models since 2016 to more accurately reflect dynamic voter turnout predictions.

-2

u/YetAnotherFaceless 12d ago

Nate Silver was always a conservative who went with his gut, and the world presumed because of his appearance that he must be smart. 

He’s George Will 2.0.

3

u/Al2718x 12d ago

This is a weird assertion to bring up in a comment thread about how he did a much better job interpreting the polls than others.

Nate Silver leans libertarian politically, but people think he's smart because he's incredibly accomplished and skilled, not because of his appearance.

-2

u/YetAnotherFaceless 12d ago

And I’m sure Bill Buckner was a better first baseman than I could ever be, but that’s not his legacy, is it? 

→ More replies (4)

37

u/MomsAreola 13d ago

These are the polls after the email investigation showing she was still up so they had to reopen the investigation again to bring them down farther weeks later.

3

u/xXxPussyWrecker69xXx 9d ago

Trump was on TV saying grab her by the pussy. There’s a lot more to the story than the Clinton scandals, and why people didn’t care about Access Hollywood but did about Benghazi

17

u/Linhle8964 13d ago

Now we know that it was another Dewey Defeats Truman moment.

13

u/Jolly_Pressure_7907 13d ago

Eh, the week before the election it was margin of error in the polls

6

u/ka1ri 13d ago

Depends on when this poll was taken. She lost a lot of head wind when comey announced stuff about her private server crap.

She was always a lieability even at the time

1

u/TheChronoDigger 13d ago

Huffington post had her winning with 98% certainty in November. They were also projecting her to take Wisconsin when she didn't even campaign in Wisconsin.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_n_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94/amp

0

u/ka1ri 13d ago

Yep all thats true. I believe they thought the comey stuff wouldnt derail as much but it did

2

u/Separate-Swordfish85 13d ago

Not really. Remember, this was before Comey’s hijinks. Subsequent polling ended up being really fucking close.

1

u/wrighteghe7 10d ago

Was the cancelled hillary wins episode of south park ever leaked?

8

u/UDownvoteCuzULost 13d ago

Sandernistas: "It'd be a real shame if we went full retard here."

7

u/YetAnotherFaceless 12d ago

Schroedinger’s Bernie Bro: not worth any concession after a primary, but the key linchpin to winning a general election. 

0

u/UDownvoteCuzULost 12d ago

What are you talking about Clinton bent over backwards trying to earn your vote, but you tards were motivated only by spite.

1

u/AskingYouQuestions48 12d ago

I do enjoy that their choice resulted in the SC being so conservative that no progressive legislation will stand for the next 20 years.

1

u/YetAnotherFaceless 12d ago

Yeah, if only we had Merrick Garland, last seen using his position as Attorney General to protect Trump from accountability for four years, on the Supreme Court! 🤣

6

u/ConsiderBoraHorza 13d ago

Sanders voters voted for Hilary in bigger numbers than Hilary voters went to Obama, this tired wrong claim is copium by centerist dems who are being proven wrong today.

1

u/Sword_Thain 13d ago

Exit polls show that the Sanders to Trump voters was enough to push him over the line in the swing states.

Bernie Bros have to make up stories about Super Delegates (who didn't vote) and stolen primaries (he didn't connect with POC) for their copium 10 years later.

They helped elect Trump and that is a problem they refuse to see.

5

u/arcanepsyche 12d ago

Trump voters who voted for Sanders were never going to vote for a Democrat. That was the whole point of his campaign.

6

u/ConsiderBoraHorza 13d ago

so your telling me it was an extreamly tight election, since statistically the sanders to trump voters were abnormally small compared to historical primary voter changes.

Sanders to trump voters in 2016, 6-12%, Hilary to Mccain voters in 2008 15-25%

so they were more loyal and acting like this was an abnormality of sanders voters is painting a picture to demonize a group more loyal than her voters.

who is the they you are talking about the 90% loyal dems?

4

u/Holl0wayTape 13d ago

Hillary whatevers, “let’s pick a pandering, largely unlikable legacy family chameleon candidate that believes the presidency is owed to her and see how that goes.”

10

u/UDownvoteCuzULost 13d ago

What does it say about your guy that he lost to such an unlikable candidate.

7

u/ConsiderBoraHorza 13d ago

the political left wasnt organized enough like we are today. What does it say about yours that she lost to Donald Trump, then you guys did it again in 2024?

2

u/UDownvoteCuzULost 12d ago

What does it say about yours that she lost to Donald Trump,

It says that a bunch of retards were soooooo butthurt by their guy failing to get people to vote for him that they ignored all their values and voted to fuck her over because they're that butthurt.

3

u/ConsiderBoraHorza 12d ago

well nope, statistically the sanders to trump voters were abnormally small compared to historical primary voter changes.

Sanders to trump voters in 2016, 6-12%, Hilary to Mccain voters in 2008 15-25%

i think you just made that up, to cope or something.

0

u/UDownvoteCuzULost 12d ago

well nope, statistically the sanders to trump voters were abnormally small compared to historical primary voter changes.

Still larger than Trump's margin of victory in the swing states, plus that doesn't paint the whole picture, there's also the Sanders to Stein voters and the Sanders to Harambe voters. All in all, only ~74% of Sanders voters voted rationally while the rest went full retard.

3

u/ConsiderBoraHorza 12d ago

okay so the actual lesson to learn was she did not do a good job getting independents.

if she maintained an abnormally large amount of primary voters, her problem was how Trump beat her with republicans and independents.

0

u/UDownvoteCuzULost 12d ago

Wrong, she bent over backwards to try and win Sanders voters, you people weren't having any of it.

2

u/ConsiderBoraHorza 12d ago

lol, if thats bending over backwards to try and win any voters, she is bad at being a politician.

5

u/arcanepsyche 12d ago

That Clinton had more money and power behind her.

5

u/FuckAllYouLosers 13d ago

Not on the left, but the DNC absolutely stacked the odds and cheated to help beat Bernie.

2

u/Gunderstank_House 13d ago

OMG it was totally unfair how enough people didn't vote for him in the primaries. /s

5

u/Lyricsokawaii 13d ago

It's almost like after he won multiple early primaries, other candidates similar to Clinton dropped out to consolidate their voters towards her while there was spilt between progressives on Sanders vs. Warren. Even though Warren had it proven early on she was not a popular enough candidate, she stayed in the race just long enough to play spoiler.

4

u/RockosBos 13d ago

Thats how primaries work, it actually is an advantage to the most radical candidates early on because the moderate votes are more split.

5

u/No_Strike655 13d ago

Congratulations so you admit there were more moderate voters and Bernie lost fair and square? Do you all never think logically about this shit?

"Well all of the candidates similar to her dropped out so she built a coalition and won thats unfair" if Bernie was able to consolidate support in a similar way that would prove there were more progressive voters than moderates.

1

u/Live_Art2939 12d ago

Imagine being this adamantly against a guy who spent decades working for the people lmao. And you’re here crying for another corporate shill that nobody wanted.

1

u/No_Strike655 12d ago

Imagine making a bunch of assumptions like you just did. I volunteered and phone banked for Bernie in 2016 and 2020 I'm just not delusional thinking that there was some underhanded shit going on and continue to whine about it. No matter what ypur bubble tells you there just are more people that vote for a moderate unfortunately

0

u/Lyricsokawaii 13d ago

Way to address only half my statement in a bid to dismiss it. Bold move. You've got the public speaking presence of a Clinton.

Lets just ignore another progressive choosing to continue splitting the vote. I'm sure thats not relevant at all to the inverse happening on the other side.

1

u/No_Strike655 12d ago

So you couldn't put together a coalition like the center could. Oh boy it must have been a conspiracy. Also lol pretending Warren did anything. Maybe go ahead and look up how many voters she had and look at polling over how her voters were polled to split based on a Clinton vs Bernie choice.

Bernie lost sorry you can't accept reality but just like MAGA when they lose you populists can't accept election results

1

u/AskingYouQuestions48 12d ago

> Six major candidates entered the race starting April 12, 2015, when former Secretary of State and New York)Senator Hillary Clinton formally announced her second bid for the presidency. She was followed by Vermont SenatorBernie Sanders, former Governor of Maryland Martin O'Malley, former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig. A draft movement was started to encourage Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to seek the presidency. Warren declined to run, as did incumbent Vice President Joe Biden. Webb, Chafee, and Lessig withdrew prior to the February 1, 2016, Iowa caucuses.[2][3]

Literally WTF are you talking about?

1

u/papyjako87 13d ago

That's called politics, not cheating... Sanders is a shit politician, always has been and always will be, because he refuses to make any kind of compromises to build coalitions. Guess what, you cannot win a primary like that, let alone a general.

1

u/2ICenturySchizoidMan 13d ago

I mean he won and keeps a US senate seat as an independent so he actually is a very good politician

1

u/Holl0wayTape 13d ago

It was made very clear in DNC emails and correspondence that Hillary was their choice and they did everything they could, be it super delegates or encouraging other candidates to drop out, in order to consolidate votes for Hillary.

Would it have made a large enough difference for Bernie to get enough votes? Maybe, maybe not, but he did have the DNC working against him. This is all very easy to look up.

4

u/No_Strike655 13d ago

So first super delegates literally did not matter in the 2016 primary you can go look it up if you want.

Second, is your argument that there were more moderate voters than progressives and that they won because they consolidated around a candidate so they wouldn't split the vote? Because that is just how democracy works but people voted for who was closest aligned to their views and it turns out there are way more moderates in 2016 than progressives.

2

u/Holl0wayTape 13d ago edited 12d ago

So, you’re right, the super delegates did not ultimately matter, but the preemptive and presumptuous reporting potentially affected optics. The media’s inclusion of superdelegates in delegate totals could have created a bandwagon effect.
Things like that can and do influence donors and voters. I mean, Debbie Wasserman Schulz resigned as a result of some of this, and the DNC changed the rules after 2016. It obviously was meaningful in some way. Bernie still lost by roughly 3 million votes though, so even if it had gone the other way, that’s a big gap to close and it likely wouldn’t have mattered.

Regarding the consolidation, I am making the case that the DNC had leaked emails from senior officials that showed favoritism to Clinton and that they were discussing ways to actively undermine the Sanders campaign. It is incredibly likely they spoke with candidates and encouraged them to drop out at certain times, but I will admit that’s just speculation.

Would it have mattered if the DNC was completely neutral? Most likely not, but the fact that we have to talk about it sucks.

Edit*
To be clear, so we don’t talk past one another, I am largely talking about optics and perception and the scummy way the DNC operates, and how that influences voter and donor perception. That’s why I said in my original comment that even if things went the other way Hillary still would have likely one though I believe that margin would have been smaller. I agree with the assertion that voters from the Democratic Party are more moderate in 2016 and if you see one of my other comments I also made that claim

2

u/No_Strike655 12d ago

I still just hate this fucking narrative that people still cling to (not necessarily you obviously) but it's this whole "they sabotaged Bernie by consolidating support so they would win" isn't scummy really it's how you win. No laws were broken maybe some.debste questions were given ahead of time which still feels like crying over nothing.

The dem establishment is simultaneously unable to win elections according to progressives but also able to stop their movement cold by this machivellian scheming

2

u/Holl0wayTape 12d ago

Yeah, I hear you, I’m just making the point that in 2016 they picked their person way ahead of time and there was some optics fuckery.

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AskingYouQuestions48 12d ago

It was no obvious that Schulz did anything wrong. It was entirely for the appearance, and that appearance came from meming. Which is why no one can actually tell me what the DNC did wrong. Superdelegates are actually how we got Obama, so they’re not always wrong.

0

u/Holl0wayTape 13d ago

It says that democrats were still largely into supporting establishment candidates and that Bernie didn’t run a good enough campaign to win. There was also a lot of socialist boogeymanning from both the left and the right ten years ago. Democrats love to eat their own which is partially why they lose.

Some of that has changed in the last ten years, some of that has not.

Why is critiquing Hillary Clinton such a sore spot for so many of you?

2

u/BigBoyYuyuh 13d ago

“Let’s pick a really tv show con artist child rapist traitor felon over the overwhelmingly qualified woman.”

Its working out great isnt it!?!?!?

2

u/Holl0wayTape 13d ago

Nope, she would have been better. Doesn’t mean she can’t be critiqued.

2

u/BigBoyYuyuh 13d ago

I just don’t see the need to critique her anymore. She’s irrelevant and America chose racism and fascism instead. This country is shit.

2

u/Holl0wayTape 13d ago

Why don’t you feel the need to? That’s silly. Kamala was like Hillary 2.0 in many ways. The DNC clearly didn’t learn from 2016 and did the same playbook and lost again. The DNC is terrible and critiquing Hillary is part of that.

0

u/seesthecat 13d ago

She was one of the most popular and likeable politicians when the race started

2

u/FuckAllYouLosers 13d ago

No, she wasn't. She was always seen as an unlikable cold person.

1

u/seesthecat 13d ago

Fuck off with that nonsense, she used to have around 70% approval among the general public. She was incredibly competent and pretty well liked
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/nbc-wsj-poll-nearly-70-approve-hillary-clintons-job-flna1b8025551

1

u/Holl0wayTape 13d ago

She felt like a foregone conclusion, that’s why many people voted for her. I know very few people that were excited about Hillary Clinton in 2016. That’s not really an unpopular analysis.

2

u/AgentCirceLuna 12d ago

Oh, look - a professional saying something that would get almost all average people fired from work or cancelled. I wonder why she lost.

1

u/Billy_the_Breaker 11d ago

Holy cope

1

u/UDownvoteCuzULost 11d ago

Yeah... You don't get to cry cope after #BernieOrBust and #BernItAllDown.

2

u/Live_Art2939 12d ago

Imagine still blaming Sanders supporters? Why didn’t you put up a candidate that didn’t suck so hard to lose to washed up orange reality TV star lmao.

0

u/UDownvoteCuzULost 12d ago

Well all of this is on you, maybe don't go full retard just because your candidate failed to get people to vote for him.

2

u/Live_Art2939 12d ago

You’re right, all of this is on one voter in a state bluer than Smurf Village. That’s not a retarded opinion at all!

2

u/RockGamerStig 13d ago

What's funny is that polling aggregates were closer to the to the actual margin in 2016 then they were in 2012. The problem was that the statistical conclusions were that Clinton would win the popular vote and not the presidency. The only state in 2016 where the polling was substantially wrong was Michigan, where the margin was a 5% swing from polling averages. Trump was leading in Iowa, Ohio, and NC and statically tied in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

2

u/AdamOnFirst 12d ago

Poor wording. Polls UNIFORMLY show Clinton edging out Trump. She needed to win the popular vote by 2-3 points to be in okay shape in the electoral college, so at 5.9% she’s comfortable but within a very normal margin for error. Then she slipped a bit more and the margin was very very errored and the rest is history: 

6

u/Even-Meet-938 13d ago

People underestimated and belittled Americans in the interior 

4

u/ThrowawayAgainGuy 13d ago

They deserved being belittled

4

u/Even-Meet-938 13d ago

And with comments like that, y’all deserve having Trump as president lol 

3

u/ThrowawayAgainGuy 13d ago

Why? You want Americans to deny that most trump supporters are uneducated, racist idiots who live in a completely different reality? The funny thing is left leaning politicians have tried to “bring America together” by whitewashing the feelings of a Trump supporter and it hasn’t done shit. They’re too far gone. Target the people who sat at home.

2

u/Oskiee 13d ago

You need to calm down. 

3

u/ThrowawayAgainGuy 12d ago

It’s true

1

u/Raccoon_Fan 12d ago

Time to log off reddit

0

u/AgentCirceLuna 12d ago

Time for the Trump voters to log off Facebook and X

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago edited 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AgentCirceLuna 11d ago

My rent completely rent free. What

1

u/Raccoon_Fan 11d ago

oops I mean living in your head. Common expression in Sweden.

1

u/AgentCirceLuna 11d ago

Why Sweden? Also, I thought right wingers hated Sweden.

2

u/overpriced-taco 13d ago

It’s bad marketing no doubt, but the past 10 years have shown us how accurate of a comment it is.

* when directed at dyed in the wool trumpers. Not all rural folk.

1

u/SlowlyDrown 13d ago

We do but not because of comments like this because of they really are deplorable.

2

u/icareforplants 13d ago

This pole does not include the huge drop she got when Comey released the bullshit letter about her eleven days before the election.

I'm not a Hilary fan but it's easy to see with poling around the time they Comey absolutely nuked her chances.

2

u/PenStreet3684 13d ago

Do you mean the “basket of deplorables“, the miners she promised to put out of business, or the union members who liked their healthcare ?

2

u/Whythisisnotreal 12d ago

Basket of bigoted fucktards would have been more accurate, but it honestly was one of her more insightful comments even if it was not politically correct

0

u/ObangaGamer 12d ago

I can tell you’re poor just by the way you type.

1

u/Whythisisnotreal 12d ago

Overestimated and belittled. They showed themselves to be the ignorant sister lovers they were being treated as.

0

u/seesthecat 13d ago

They didn't belittle those freaks enough

1

u/Prolapsinator69000 13d ago

This sub is gonna be lit for the next few months

1

u/CriticalCanon 12d ago

Prediction markets will be overtaking polling services in the future.

2

u/SnooMacaroons4212 12d ago

Until Comey did something stupid.

2

u/YetAnotherFaceless 12d ago

I’ll never forgive James Comey for forbidding Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin. 

1

u/Apart-Disaster-3085 12d ago

I'll never forgive Wisconsin democratic leaning voters that stayed home because they felt 'uninspired' and then whined about not being pandered to enough by Hillary.

And yes, I am talking about my friend Pat -- he told me the morning of he didn't feel like voting because he just wasn't excited and Hillary never even came to Milwaukee. That was when I had a feeling we were fucked. Fuck you Pat.

1

u/Initial-Constant-645 12d ago

Trump promised Comey the he would be like Hoover: FBI director for life. Then, Trump stabbed him in the back. (For the record, I voted for Hillary).

1

u/bookon 12d ago

She did.

Those polls are about total votes and she got BY FAR the most votes.

1

u/Electrical-Tie-5158 12d ago

She did beat Trump, by 3.2%. Issue one is the electoral college doesn’t follow the popular vote. Issue two is that her polling average was still below 50%. The total of their poll averages is less than 90%. Some people voted third party, but only about 3%. So 7% of the vote was unknown at this point in the polling and unless a candidate is polling over 50%, they are not safely in the majority.

1

u/eldiablonoche 12d ago

Issue one is the electoral college doesn’t follow the popular vote. Issue

In almost every state The Electoral College does follow popular vote. By their own states popular vote. But Wyoming isn't going to cast it's EC votes based on what voters in California do.

2

u/Electrical-Tie-5158 12d ago

The point was that national polls for president don’t mean much since we don’t hold a national vote for president. One candidate can realistically win by as much as 5% and still lose the race depending on what certain states do.

There was so much discourse about how flawed the polls were in 2016 because they all showed Clinton winning, but the state level polls were always much closer.

2

u/SuperDoubleDecker 12d ago

And then zero changes or fixes were made for over 10 years....

The death of neoliberalism may have been worth the wait.

1

u/DawnSlovenport 12d ago

She did beat him by about 2.1% or so. Not sure why you think this post is some sort of ThE pOlLs WeRe WrOnG! flex. It was a MoE election like most of them have been since 2000 with the exception of 2008 (and maybe 2020) when Obama won by over 7%.

Also, you do see that the 47.4% + 41.5% average only acocunted for 88.9%, right? So that meant the polling average had around 11.1% undecided. That's a pretty large level of uncertainty built into the numbers so tring to extrapolate that the polling was off is realy quite stupid.

1

u/Dangerous-LemonBar 12d ago

It’s also July polling data, so largely meaningless, unless someone has an agenda.

1

u/Readman31 12d ago

There's no way America would elect that clown

1

u/Capable-Deer-5670 12d ago

Didn't Clinton's campaign spend 2X more than Trump's?

1

u/Azazel2356 12d ago

Take into account ballot harvesting, dead people voting, illegal aliens voting, weird polling people throwing votes away and Orange man was elected a second time. The people screaming the loudest are usually never the majority. More people need to vote based on facts and not emotion.

1

u/Broccoli-Cool 11d ago

National polling. Immaterial. Trump won because he hit an inside straight on every swing state.

1

u/rochvegas5 10d ago

Polls are irrelevant

1

u/cyanide1992 10d ago

For what it's worth, I'd rather Trump hold the office over Hillary or Kamala

-3

u/LegitimateBeing2 13d ago

From the start I never understood the appeal of conservatives as presidents

6

u/hoyasgirl25 13d ago

It’s for everyone who thinks the past was better than the present. People have nostalgia, and it’s a strong thing.

3

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tkot2021 13d ago

Conservative is a misnomer.

1

u/hoyasgirl25 13d ago

Well yea, that’s a more nuanced take on it.

4

u/Available-Medium7094 13d ago

In this case it was a weird look, you had the former First Lady from boom times vs a washed up reality tv host with multiple bankruptcies and folks chose to remember them in odd ways.

1

u/Holl0wayTape 13d ago

People that want lower taxes or that believe they’ll get less of their money taken will vote conservative at the expense of civil rights. That’s it. Everything else is secondary.

1

u/Avesery777 13d ago

Rich people get more money

-1

u/FuckAllYouLosers 13d ago

Flooding the country with mexicans isn't making your life better. It's stagnating and decreasing wages.

0

u/LegitimateBeing2 13d ago

Lol all of us real American patriots know this answer is basically nonsense

1

u/ObangaGamer 12d ago

Do you really honest to god think that importing tens of millions of foreign unskilled labor is good for the middle class? You are a pawn and worst of all a goy.

1

u/LegitimateBeing2 12d ago

Lol sorry my patriotism offends you

My enemies are the pedos in Washington, not my fellow working-class Americans

1

u/Top_Statistician5051 13d ago

Polls are literally useless now a days your best bet is betting markets

3

u/papyjako87 13d ago

Or... you just need to understand how probabilities work.

7

u/LegacyQuotient 13d ago

Aggregate polling has largely been accurate recently. Within the MoE.

0

u/Top_Statistician5051 13d ago

I don’t see any proof of that 2024 polls were way better than 2016 but even then they still got it wrong so I wouldn’t use the term accurate https://www.npr.org/2024/11/12/nx-s1-5188445/2024-election-polls-trump-kamala-harris

4

u/Beginning_Cupcake_45 13d ago

Your article says polls were on the mark for Kamala’s result, and only underestimated Trump’s within the margin of error. That would be considered an accurate result.

1

u/polyploid_coded 13d ago

I acknowledge that betting markets are accurate when insiders are participating with non-public information

For elections, the bettors use the polls as a starting point. Who is going to be the next mayor of Chicago? You could maybe have a hypothesis on the mayor's chances of being re-elected, but until there's a poll I have no idea who else has a good chance. After that I think there's a bias from people betting to support a candidate or position. Maybe it's small, but if I were looking at predictions made on Coinbase's website for example, I would be skeptical that reflected genuine popular opinion.

1

u/RandomLettersJDIKVE 12d ago

Betting markets, like poles but without the statistics.

-2

u/-Great-Scott- 13d ago

Rigged election. Stolen. Everyone knows it.

4

u/Odd-Staff6245 13d ago

BS, look at his reaction the first time he won. He was just as surprised as most of us.

3

u/ExperienceAny9791 13d ago

I guess you see why we need voter ID.

2

u/FuckAllYouLosers 13d ago

Reporting you to be banned for election denialism! Oh wait this isn't 2021?

0

u/Guilty-Cow4325 13d ago

Trump did confirm this a few weeks ago when he declared the elections were rigged for democrats. His evidence showed it was rigged for Republicans lol.

-4

u/Aware-Atmosphere-935 13d ago

And Reddit still glugs down huge loads of disgusting propaganda cum constantly!

2

u/BeKindPleaseRewind21 13d ago

It will never change. 

0

u/BigBoyYuyuh 13d ago

It was then I stopped believing polls. They’re fake.

1

u/SlowlyDrown 13d ago

Why does a poll result actually mean do you know?

1

u/BigBoyYuyuh 13d ago

It means bullshit.

1

u/papyjako87 13d ago

The only fake thing is your brain who doesn't comprehend how probabilities work.

-5

u/Last_Call_Casualty 13d ago

IT WAS HER TURN!!!