What do you expect? The victory being so unlikely is the story, did you want to see "very improbable thing happened" as a title on CNN?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Analysts were blind to one of the biggest upsets in primary history. What went wrong?
- Thread starter brainchild
- Start date
- Status
What do you expect? The victory being so unlikely is the story, did you want to see "very improbable thing happened" as a title on CNN?
Psychoward
Banned
Instead they should have made it "Bernie Sanders has a thing happen that wasn't likely... click here to find out more! Pollsters hate him!"
Come on man.
Bel Marduk
Banned
It shouldn't have been a surprise at all
Hillary Clinton has taken many positions which are anathema to progressive voters throughout her career and is seen as personally dislikable and dishonest by quite a few voters across political lines
Of course she isn't a shoe in
Hillary Clinton has taken many positions which are anathema to progressive voters throughout her career and is seen as personally dislikable and dishonest by quite a few voters across political lines
Of course she isn't a shoe in
The hell are you talking about?
brainchild
Banned
What the fuck are you on about, mate? Did you even read the article?!!
538 said:
That's pretty much exactly what he said!
This isn't about anything other than the upset, so you can keep your strawmen; I don't want 'em.
I still can't believe she admitted to this.
Actually, it does refer to the primary in general. Hart upsetting Mondale, which was the last big upset (in 1984), was in New Hampshire.
Upsets are inherently associated with defying expectations, so no, you can't qualify with 'expected polls or no'. The expectations from polls being so off is the whole reason that this is a major upset. NOT that he won by 2 percentage points.
Also, Tyler is a statistician. He has an actual statistical model and refined it with each primary/caucus result. Those margins will get more and more accurate with each prediction.
But I'M not making it about that. This is MY thread and I'VE been talking about the statistics since the beginning, not his win.
Square2015
Member
Maybe the GOP will introduce super delegates after this cycle while the Dems need to drop theirs.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
exclusive voting is essentially the definition of undemocratic
If you are going to post something like this, at least explain what "trouble" means.
Wafflecakes
Member
One of the biggest upsets? Lol.... no.
It was a fairly generic upset considering how uneven primary polling is.
Still, it has some major implications though it doesn't really change the math much.
It was a fairly generic upset considering how uneven primary polling is.
Still, it has some major implications though it doesn't really change the math much.
Inspector Jones
Member
From Yahoo: Poll: 33% of Sanders Supporters Wouldn't Vote for Clinton
Clinton isn't going to win the same voters that Bernie attracts, and whomever the democratic nominee ends up being will need every vote to beat Trump.
Primary polls were never that wrong before. So yeah, this is not only one of the biggest, it's the biggest upset so far. How much it changes is on another paper, but you can't just ignore that this is a major deviation from what people predicted.
Take it from this angle: the real story is the statistics failure, right? Even if the vote had gone 50-48 in favor of Hillary, we'd still have a big polling story on our hands. The polls would still have been wildly off and Nate Silver calling it a stunning result would still fit. Since that's the part of the story that matters today and tomorrow and going forward, we should lead with that.
Well yeah that's fine. There's no question that newsrooms and polling firms all over America are buzzing and hand-wringing over this result today. You don't own the threads you make though. This is a story that's popping off all over the place and I'M interested in the developing narrative more than I'm interested in the statistics, at least until some other Great Lakes states vote and we see if this is a real thing or just a fluke.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
ah, "refines predictions", so basically guessing when the balots are already being dropped.
Septimus Prime
Member
How about just drop delegates in general and go with direct vote counts? Delegates are a holdover from a bygone era, where counting actual votes was impractical.
Trump still hasn't managed to get fifty percent of the Republican primary voters in any state. Still not worried.
Wafflecakes
Member
I am not saying the polling wasn't way off, but imo biggest upset has to take into account the effect it has on the race, which I don't foresee being that much.
Hillary winning New Hampshire in 2008 was far more significant imo. Kept her in the race far longer than she would have otherwise.
Wafflecakes
Member
They said the same thing with Hillary vs Obama, except the polling was even more damning.
They all came around in the end.
The one practical thing delegates accomplish is they give us a built-in runoff mechanism. If the Republicans get to convention without a majority candidate, then they'll need the delegates to vote for perhaps several rounds until they find a majority. It probably isn't practical from a turnout standpoint to do a national runoff election (or series of elections) for the primary. Primary turnout is already so low, who's going to show up for the third runoff vote?
I know this has partially been discussed already, but no one has pointed out this part of the issue with superdelegates: the fact that the news has been adding them to Hillary's delegate count for pretty much the entire primary season. Are you really going to tell me straight-faced that images like this:
Have no effect on the primary elections?
I'm not arguing that Clinton is winning in pledged delegates as well, but let's not pretend that the superdelegates haven't influenced voters in any way.
Yeap, pure propaganda.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
You mean since Wallace in 68
My guess would be the most informed voters which are usually the most passionate about showing up to vote.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Precisely.
brainchild
Banned
When talking about the scale of an upset, you have to factor in the percentage point deficit that was anticipated by the polls. In this case, we're talking about 20 to 30 percentage points. That's well beyond the margin of error and is FACTUALLY the biggest upset in primary history.
It's fine if you don't think that it's a big deal, but that doesn't change the facts.
Psychoward
Banned
What was a bigger upset in primary polling in terms of predictions versus results?
The OP clearly details we're talking about the polling and analytical process and yet there are still these shitposts from devoted Hillary fans.
brainchild
Banned
This is something else entirely. What you're talking about is a matter of 'significance' or 'importance', and I'm talking about the literal definition of the word 'big', that refers to the size/scale by which the polls were off.
Yeah, the strawmen are getting ridiculous.
King Tubby
Member
What I meant was, the upset isn't "Sanders is going to beat Hillary for the nomination!", it's Sanders beat Hillary in this one state where she was expected to clean up.
Yoda
Member
If the super-delegates support the candidate with less pledged delegates the party will forfeit the general.
Solid point.
brainchild
Banned
Ah, OK. Yeah, I can agree with that interpretation.
Why are people acting like this is some new thing? Liberals have already been loudly claiming that poor whites are ignorantly voting against their interests for decades - it's part of why we're seen as condescending elitists.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Yeah, saying he got every Super Tuesday state right but Minnesota, while true, is pretty misleading when he missed the margin Minnesota by 29. For all we know his model got Michigan right for the wrong reasons. I'm certainly going to want to see more before I anoint him a genius.
brainchild
Banned
Fair point, but it's not like Tyler doesn't revise his model after seeing how off his margins are.
His model isn't about getting it right the first time, but becoming less wrong over time.
brainchild
Banned
Those were preliminary projections, not final.
He's already said that the data has changed, so he'll be making some adjustments soon.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked