There's numerous models being run with different emphasis (some being based on things other than polls like economic and political indicators (fundamental analysis) ) that put things at about +8

And the polls seem to be about +8.

There's numerous videos of the 2016 elections of smug expressions being wiped over the course of 6 hours.

The recent election in special election in Ohio is an R+8 district and that was dead even.

Giddy excitement turned into cold sweat.

And you trust the polls

That it happened once in the past does not ensure it happens again.

The same thing everyone trusted at the time.

WHAT'S CHANGED

**WHAT HAS CHANGED**

Well for one, the pollsters are being more careful.

Tell me what incredibly genius measures have been set in place since then

Tell me.

Last time I remember the polilng was saying 95+% in favor of a Hillary win.

Oh they're more careful. They don't step on the sidewalk cracks anymore.

Good for them.

9_6

Which actually crosses the line into the "never trust a unanimous consensus" territory.

HOW are they more careful.

Well for one, no one is putting odds above 80% without lots of evidence to back it up.

Lots of?

And most are closer to something like 538 in 2016.

Around 60%.

How much is lots of.

Which was widely criticized at the time.

Months of consistent polls.

And are you just taking people's word on it?

Lots of independent models.

OK. What makes you think it's all wrong.

Have you, as a person, ever been polled for something like that?

I've never been polled.

No. But I've done poll work so I know how easily you can manipulate things if that's where you're going.

How many people have you met in your life that have been polled?

But polling in the US is reasonably good.

How are we so certain these pollsters don't just hang around shopping malls?

Well for one, I get the phone calls.

But I rarely answer those calls.

The bias in phone responses tends to over-emphasize the elderly.

For that reason.

Not an argument.

I'd like to print this and frame it.

Right

The argument is: 2016

IF you want.

But simply because it happened in 2016 does not imply it happens in 2018.

Your faith is amusing.

So saying "Trump won 2016 and therefore Republicans win 2018" is a little fallacious.

You think everyone with a job is doing it well.

No. I think there's a number of people who are.

To the best of their ability

im with scribble on this one, the polls are unreliable

Pollsters tend to try and be objective.

PRFF

Watch the Penn and Teller episode on NUMBERS

Both parties rely on it for strategy and contract it all out. And you don't deceive yourself if you're talking strategy.

I believe it's the numbers episode anyway

people fear for SJW backlash

y'all being rude

Where the pollsters do whatever they have to do, to get the answers they're AFTER.

so they lie or dont tell

ree

And they do it all the fucking time.

I'm not going to argue there. But political pollsters do tend to try and stay sorta objective.

The News polls are not the most reliable.

```Watch the Penn and Teller episode on NUMBERS```
I'm dead serious. Do this.

Will do.

>Penn and Teller
lmao

But if you're saying social sciences are full of trash, you're talking to the choir here.

You just don't know the tricks of the trade for polls

But I've been around long enough to be able to sort out trash from not trash.

No, I do.

Trust me. I do.

Way more than you will ever know.

HaCk ThE eLeCtIoN

It's not just incompetence. Plenty of MALICE is involved as well.

Little lapdogs for some funding.

"Get the results we want!!"

You do know I'm something of an academic.

Oh good.

I know plenty well how neutral gatekeepers manipulate these things.

Facts change when you have a backstory all of a sudden.

I also know when I'm seeing an honest study.

the possision that polls serve no predictive power is dumb and people who hold tht possition are dumb. they predict the results of the people being polled rather accuratly

We're just talking past each other at this point...

"We want this answer, find us proof for it"

as opposed to "We want to find out what the answer is and then prove it"

Ben Shapiro had to admit he was wrong after the 2016 election

But here he is again, getting fooled the exact same way, by the polls.

It's a weird amnesia.

many groups are not being polled however, as there is no reliable way to reach them and potentially screen them (to prevent their numbers from counting twice, or to make sure the sample is random enough)

I think the blue wave is just Mind Games Round 2.

@Dr.Wol Yeah, that's the problem in the social sciences right now. Particularly the more activist and political elements.

Then what was this recent election in Ohio?

That's an R+8 district.

Who are we talking about?

It should have never been news. Nonetheless as close as it was.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/republican-declared-winner-of-narrow-victory-in-ohio-special-election/

Troy Balderson.

Ignore the headline if you want. But it's a verified fact it's a safe Republican district that was so close that they spent weeks recounting.

You really think that's comparable to the mega-event in november?