No, they did not. I am going to repeat this until I am blue in the face- the polls in the US were within margin of error to the actual results, across every single state. What the media reported was a whole bunch of cherry-picked bullshit, but the polls were not wrong.
Being wrong within margin of error =/= Being correct, that said its validity does not have much bearing in how Clinton's apparent lead was taken as good reason to grow complacent. If the polls were 100% accurate and were correct in calling Trump's lead, the same lessons would apply to his campaign. "If polls were 100% accurate and 100% reliable for each moment in time they were taken, times change, and with it people's intentions." Never give up until you've finally won. Why you would give up because a poll is telling you you're winning, even if the poll is true at that time and will continue to be true to the future - is beyond me.
The polls were not wrong!
Yes they were m8
"
Yes, the election polls were wrong. Here's why."
We treat polls like weather forecasts – but voters are inherently unpredictable. A hunger for certainty sets expectations that are impossible to meet. The polls were wrong. And because we are obsessed with predicting opinions rather than listening to them, we didn’t see it coming. So, the world woke up believing that Republican candidate Donald Trump had a 15% chance of winning based on polling predictions – roughly the same chance of rolling a total of six if you have two dice. Despite those odds, the next US president will be Donald Trump.
I have a few ideas about what went wrong. In the four years I’ve spent as a data journalist, I’ve been concerned by how much faith the public has placed in polling. Just like you’d check the weather before getting dressed, many people checked presidential polling numbers before heading out to vote. That’s understandable. Politics can feel as unpredictable as the weather, and who wouldn’t want to eliminate uncertainty? The world is a scary and confusing place right now.
But those are two very different kinds of forecasts. One is based on natural science, the other on social science. People are different from planets – they can change their minds, they can decide to not share their opinions or they can flat-out lie. And that’s before you even get to some of the statistical issues that make polling inaccurate.
That’s not new information.
This is all I've been saying.
As for Brexit? I will admit, polling error in the UK tends to be larger than in the US, so in that case I will concede that the polling had issues for Brexit. But for fuck's sake stop waving around the media fuckup in the US as if polls are somehow fundamentally wrong or not working. Shitty reporting is responsible for the premature circlejerk in the US, not polls. The polls showed a close race with the potential for a Clinton win or a Trump win with him losing the popular vote, and the latter happened. For someone who appears very aware of media bias, you sure seem to be buying it hook, line, and sinker when it comes to all the media outlets these days blaming the polls to cover their asses on how they fucked up reporting for a year.
For God's sakes are any of you going to read my posts before criticizing me? That is my argument. It is like I said, pollsters could be 100% accurate and this problem would
still remain.I don't think French pollsters suck exceptionally, I just find it foolish to buy into the sort of strategizing that ignores their own eyes and reason in favour of the assumptions predicated on polls.
First sentence. Right there. French pollsters don't suck. Media that declare wars won before battles have begun instill complacency. Politicians that prefer consulting polls to people suck at campaigning. People assuming they've won before they've done the work needed to win will be surprised eventually. In this specific example - winning the election will not be the same as victory.
Unlike with previous elections, there isn't a single poll that predicts Le Pen winning. Unlike with previous Brexit and USA elections, the gap in votes is not 2-3%, but a full-on 20%.
This is not complacency, this is a statement of the factual reality based on cold, hard facts that there hasn't been a single candidate in history that overcame such odds without blatant cheating, and that two weeks isn't nearly enough to make a full 1/5th of France's voting population switch sides.
I feel like I'm wasting my time.
"because something hasn't ever happened, it won't happen" - is flawed thinking.
If he loses out of complacency, that's one thing. If he wins a victory over a nation united alongside him, but not behind him - in the absence of FN, the inward turmoil will be immediate. In the UK, our politicians stopped listening to people, because they instead looked to see how they polled, divvying up safe seats to honoured members without actually listening to or putting in the work needed to serve their voters. What happened? The election was polled to be neck and neck between Labour and Tory, yet resulted in a Tory landslide and the EU referendum getting put on the table, with the Cameron Premiership running off of polls - not learning anything, and suffering the same fate as labour in the referendum. This mindset of maximizing victory with information analysis without putting in the work needed to actually convince people to follow you is bizarre, it is like throwing away all principles of leadership and good governance in favour of empty victories. Without an answer to why the Far-right and Far-left have grown in France, it will only continue to grow. Does not take a genius to figure that out, in victory you will just be sowing the seeds for a future clash.
This election is over for your side, LW. Euroscepticism has lost in France. It's just a matter of technical formalities to make it official.
"My side?" Excuse you? Technical formalities? The sheer arrogance is extremely repellent, God knows that has always been the appeal to many populist groups. If you tell people their votes don't matter and that the matter is already won - a mere issue of technical formalities, your supporters will not inconvenience themselves with the effort needed to vote, and those on the fence will be repelled by the smug attitude that they are unneeded and unsought for.
Well, yes. I meant, for a time being. Obviously. But for the next several years...
it's EuroUnity time
Which is about as optimistic as thinking winning the war in Iraq means Freedom time.
I can never be sure with you and the EU Sergarr, as you have ironically supported it in a deliberately obnoxious fashion before, thus I wonder now if you act this way in order to undermine the EU and make people opposed to it - I've seen shilling done by Anons in this manner on social media before. Few things can as readily turn someone to the cause you like than an obnoxious endorsement of "the other side."