Timeline for Why were pre-election polls and forecast models inconsistent with the election of Donald Trump?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2019 at 5:07 | comment | added | Alec | FL was over 100k anyways | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 21:04 | comment | added | H2ONaCl | Rather than an 80K shift in FL and 40K shift in PA for a total margin of victory of 120K, how about a total shift of 78K in WI, MI, and PA. | |
| Nov 12, 2016 at 3:35 | comment | added | JeopardyTempest | An alternative theory could be that the Trump campaign targeted on the reality that they needed 270 EV to win (and would thus need a state considered fairly safely blue). Then it came down to which ones, and perhaps they decided those states offered the best hopes to get there (perhaps due to demographics and limited effort from Clinton there). Just a thought. | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 19:11 | comment | added | Charles Duffy | @Dunk, I don't think that's by any means the only feasible explanation. Trump's campaign was operating with a different likely-voter model, one that turned out to be more accurate than the one based on historical demographic turnout. We'll learn more over the next several years as statisticians dig into the details. | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 17:34 | comment | added | Dunk | Donald Trump's internal pollsters discovered potential openings in several states which caused him to change his campaign strategy and go to states he didn't plan on visiting because the media had those states in the bag for Hillary. In particular, Michigan and Wisconsin. I seriously doubt that Trump's internal pollsters had some magical model that correctly predicted this and all the other 'credible' pollsters models missed it. This was no problem with the models. It was a problem with the integrity of the media and the pollsters. | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 15:16 | comment | added | user4012 | @JeopardyTempest - the question itself has links in comments to two Politics.SE posts discussing this. Overall umbrella trade term is "Social Desirability Bias" | |
| S Nov 9, 2016 at 15:06 | history | suggested | curiousdannii | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix some typos
|
| Nov 9, 2016 at 15:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 9, 2016 at 15:06 | |||||
| Nov 9, 2016 at 12:37 | comment | added | SJuan76 | @JeopardyTempest They are just attempts to correct the models to account for people who do not vote as they say in the polls: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 12:28 | comment | added | JeopardyTempest | Let me ask this, to guide the conversation back on topic. I take it that the Bradley effect and "Shy Tory" effect are already political science terms. Could you add a few words to make those clear to those of us less knowledgeable, it would make your already great answer even more complete. | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 12:24 | comment | added | JeopardyTempest | No no, I'm sorry, it was directed at a range of opinions I've come across tonight and in the days leading up to the election, not at all at what you said. I totally agree with all you say. Just vocalizing a definite opinion I've come across that that the electoral college is fundamentally flawed and hoping to stem any further debate down that avenue. But you're right, wrong place for it, and if anything I invited that distraction. I apologize. | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 | comment | added | SJuan76 | @JeopardyTempest I am not talking about "cheating" at all. You may think that the electoral system is fair enough or not, that it needs to be changed or not, etc., but most of that is a matter of opinion and off-topic to the OP question. Since the current electoral system is the same to all candidates, and all candidates agreed to these electoral rules, it is better to talk about the "particularities" of the system and how these affect candidates; in fact all of the candidates try to use those rules to their advantage (by courting swing states, etc.). That is not "cheating" at all. | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 12:13 | comment | added | JeopardyTempest | Just to note for people, a first past the post system based instead on popular vote still might not be to your satisfaction... as Clinton looks to win the popular vote but not the majority. So depending upon the setup, that could still favor Trump, or force some sort of political alliance. So for people to simply chalk this off as being cheated out by a flawed electoral college system is perhaps a little hollow (though I'm not at all that you are SJuan76, your conclusions are absolutely solid!) | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 11:42 | history | answered | SJuan76 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |