• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
Did you also notice that they are in the North, that they haven't voted yet, and that they have various polls going for 6 months or more that have all favored Clinton by double digits? You should also see New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
Click to expand...

I've also looked at the methodology in the latest NY poll and found it ridiculously flawed. Apparently it was good enough for Nate though -- as seen on his graphs. Maybe if they looked at new voter registration numbers over the past 6 months or so, instead of just throwing out everyone that didn't vote in 2012, they might have a chance at - guessing - the effect they're trying to account for with better accuracy.

The failure to do such a thing is so obviously wrong that the poll is hardly worth discussing. Of course, we won't have those numbers anyway until the end of today -- which is the deadline for new registrants voting in the NY primary. Even then, I'm not sure whether those numbers will be counted/released (yes, there are things that I admit to not knowing -- see how that works?). Even without those numbers they could possibly even guesstimate based on prior elections (which would also be flawed) or the numbers occurring in other states during this election (best).
 
Last edited:
timhau said:
Did you notice that there's no prediction for NY, just a polling average?
Click to expand...

Not only that; I'm aware of which polls changed the averages. It's not like there are all that many of them. The Emmerson College poll was the latest. Each move in that graph correlates to one singular poll. You can find the major ones here and there are only three. It is also pretty easy to find their methodology. The Emmerson College one in particular is ridiculous.

Also take note of Michigan while you're there. They did a lot more polling and NONE of them predicted a Sanders win. Not a single one of them. There are 19 polls in that list for Michigan. So... it's not just about being wrong -on average-. They were all wrong -- all nineteen of them.

So how does New York get a meaningful consideration with only three?

Also note the margins on the rest of them with respect to the actual results. For the most part, they aren't particularly close -- especially in states that didn't do a lot of polling.

Also note that every single Emmerson College poll that I've seen in the list seems to have Hillary winning. I haven't thoroughly looked through the list, so there might be an exception in there somewhere, but I have noticed that tendency. I can't help but assume that they're involved with her campaign somehow. Note that they're not a public college -- they're private. They're also known exclusively for the arts -- not science.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
I don't generally allow conservative websites (like realclearpolitics) to decide which polls are relevant and which ones aren't to my considerations. Nor do I see anything particularly note worthy of Silvers' analyses, even a broken clock is right twice a day, if you only focus on the times it is right that's hundreds of correct correlations/approximations each year.
Click to expand...

[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247323
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
This isn't 2012, and is also not the general election. Different conditions apply. What "worked" (if it indeed did work in any way other than chance) then doesn't necessarily apply to current conditions. Populist candidates can logically blow the whole thing out of whack, for one thing.
Click to expand...

Do you think it was just chance that Drew Linzer, Sam Wang, and Simon Jackman all independently arrived at the same answer as Nate Silver? Or might it be that polling provides insight into population level behaviour?

This flagrant statistical denialism beggars belief and buggers the brain.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and here's an interesting little FB post for you... straight from Emmerson. They should know:

https://www.facebook.com/ecpolling/posts/977674038975567

Hillary Clinton is spending more money to conduct her own polls than any other candidate running for president and more than the total combined sums of the top Republicans in the race.
Clinton spent $720,000 in the final three months of last year, federal financial disclosure forms reviewed by MSNBC revealed.
Click to expand...
Does anybody else think that you possibly get what you pay for?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Do you think it was just chance that Drew Linzer, Sam Wang, and Simon Jackman all independently arrived at the same answer as Nate Silver? Or might it be that polling provides insight into population level behaviour?

This flagrant statistical denialism beggars belief and buggers the brain.
Click to expand...

Polling can give us an idea what the vote will be, but only if that poll favors Sanders. If it doesn't, then Sanders will win anyway. Of course, repeatedly having been shown to be wrong is no reason for a Sanders supporter to change their tune on polling, or his chances of getting the nomination.
 
Manopolus said:
I've also looked at the methodology in the latest NY poll and found it ridiculously flawed. Apparently it was good enough for Nate though -- as seen on his graphs. Maybe if they looked at new voter registration numbers over the past 6 months or so, instead of just throwing out everyone that didn't vote in 2012, they might have a chance at - guessing - the effect they're trying to account for with better accuracy.

The failure to do such a thing is so obviously wrong that the poll is hardly worth discussing. Of course, we won't have those numbers anyway until the end of today -- which is the deadline for new registrants voting in the NY primary. Even then, I'm not sure whether those numbers will be counted/released (yes, there are things that I admit to not knowing -- see how that works?). Even without those numbers they could possibly even guesstimate based on prior elections (which would also be flawed) or the numbers occurring in other states during this election (best).
Click to expand...

Ok, throw out the poll that puts Clinton up by 48, and we are only left with polls putting Clinton up by 21 to 40. That really helps your case, doesn't it?
 
wareyin said:
Ok, throw out the poll that puts Clinton up by 48, and we are only left with polls putting Clinton up by 21 to 40. That really helps your case, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Well, considering it's Clinton's home turf (although she's actually from Mass, where she didn't win by much), I wonder why there hasn't been more polling done there, for one -- Clinton being the Queen of Polls, that is. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there'll be more coming out shortly (unlike Washington State).
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Your skills at creating straw men is noted. Now quit trying so hard to show off that ability.
Click to expand...

You're going to go with "strawman" to explain away your posts saying that when the polls are competitive Sanders wins by 80%, and polls are predictive only when you agree with them?
 
wareyin said:
You're going to go with "strawman" to explain away your posts saying that when the polls are competitive Sanders wins by 80%, and polls are predictive only when you agree with them?
Click to expand...

They're predictive only to the point that they're predictably wrong in the same manner, as suggested in the "up to 80%" comment. Your straw man was quite clearly not a representation of what I said.
 
Manopolus said:
They're predictive only to the point that they're predictably wrong in the same manner, as suggested in the "up to 80%" comment. Your straw man was quite clearly not a representation of what I said.
Click to expand...

Which is why Sanders is winning the race so far, correct? And still, you believe the polls when they say Sanders is going to win, and if they don't, they're all predictably wrong and he's going to win anyway. Never mind the fact that he's losing, and will continue his streak of loss.
 
d4m10n said:
Do you think it was just chance that Drew Linzer, Sam Wang, and Simon Jackman all independently arrived at the same answer as Nate Silver? Or might it be that polling provides insight into population level behaviour?

This flagrant statistical denialism beggars belief and buggers the brain.
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
wareyin said:
Which is why Sanders is winning the race so far, correct? And still, you believe the polls when they say Sanders is going to win, and if they don't, they're all predictably wrong and he's going to win anyway. Never mind the fact that he's losing, and will continue his streak of loss.
Click to expand...

As said many times, I'm not the one making predictions with regard to the totality of the race. I think I've made that quite clear. Nowhere have I said that Sanders will absolutely win. I have merely refused to take it off the list of possible outcomes (and rightly so -- empirically).

I have been sufficiently convinced enough that he will win this Saturday, but that's about it. One week at a time. Even that didn't rely much on polling, although I did go ahead and include polling in ONE POST regarding that element. Is it possible for Hillary to win in the states that caucus Saturday? Of course it is. However, it doesn't seem likely.

If you want to go further ahead than that, you sort of have to take into account factors which have not yet happened, among other things. Do you know what the news will report tomorrow? I don't. I have even less of a clue what it will be in two weeks.


When will you realize that strawmanning me into your position -- but on the opposite candidate -- won't work? The difference in our arguments go way beyond which candidate we are behind. You're projecting.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom