One chart shows everything one needs to know about Trump's approval rating

[KCfromNC]

Which poll predicted the electoral college better?

Thanks for asking. Lots got closer - 538 for example was closer by 20 EC votes : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

unless you can point to who did convincingly better ... your argument falls flat.

And now we've seen it doesn't. I wonder what excuse is next on the list.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Thanks for asking. Lots got closer - 538 for example was closer by 20 EC votes : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/.

And now we've seen it doesn't. I wonder what excuse is next on the list.

So 538 was 5% closer ... but still 50% off the mark.

 

[KCfromNC]

So 538 was 5% closer

Yep, more accurate than the source you claimed was the "single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election, almost dead-on".

 

[NightHawkeye]

Yep, more accurate than the source you claimed was the "single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election, almost dead-on".

50% off is closer than dead-on?

Strange statistics.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So 538 was 5% closer ... but still 50% off the mark.

Actually, they were off by about 30% - 29.36%, to be exact. Rasmussen was off by 40.7%.

Which of those numbers is closer to 0%?

50% off is closer than dead-on?

Strange statistics.

I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was not dead-on and that fivethirtyeight was 5% (actually 10%) more accurate?

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually, they were off by about 30% - 29.36%, to be exact. Rasmussen was off by 40.7%.

Which of those numbers is closer to 0%?


I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was not dead-on and that fivethirtyeight was 5% (actually 10%) more accurate?

I'm always impressed by how someone can continue to both get the math so wrong and try to lecture others on how to read polls.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was not dead-on and that fivethirtyeight was 5% (actually 10%) more accurate?

I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was the single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election.

Of course, you knew this already.

 

[KCfromNC]

I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was the single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election.

Nope. Take it up with the guy who wrote this :

538 was 5% closer

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was the single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election.

Of course, you knew this already.

No, you claimed that. You have yet to establish it. So far, the evidence says otherwise:

Our Final 2016 Picks - Rasmussen Reports®

Clinton: 322
Trump: 216

And you appear to agree:

So 538 was 5% closer ... but still 50% off the mark.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm always impressed by how someone can continue to both get the math so wrong and try to lecture others on how to read polls.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, you claimed that. You have yet to establish it. So far, the evidence says otherwise:

And you appear to agree:

We've been through this about a dozen times already, so I find your disingenuous denial amusing.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

We've been through this about a dozen times already, so I find your disingenuous denial amusing.

We have? I don't recall participating in any discussion of Rasmussen before, and despite your many claims of its accuracy all over the forums, I've yet to see any evidence of said accuracy. If I've missed it, could you please re-post?

 

[NightHawkeye]

We have? I don't recall participating in any discussion of Rasmussen before, and despite your mainy claims of its accuracy all over the forums, I've yet to see any evidence of said accuracy. If I've missed it, could you please re-post?

Nope.

You can either go back through the thread ... or you can Google it. It's easy to find information.

 

[whatbogsends]

We've been through this about a dozen times already, so I find your disingenuous denial amusing.

Right. We've been through this.

You make the claim.

You're shown that your claim is false.

You change the goal posts, and your claim doesn't even meet your new standard set.

You are shown again that your claim is incorrect.

You repeat the initial claim as if this other discussion about your original claim was people saying "Gee, you're right" when they were actually saying "This is why your claim is false"

And i'm sure we'll go through this again.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Right. We've been through this.

You make the claim.

You're shown that your claim is false.

You change the goal posts, and your claim doesn't even meet your new standard set.

You are shown again that your claim is incorrect.

You repeat the initial claim as if this other discussion about your original claim was people saying "Gee, you're right" when they were actually saying "This is why your claim is false"

And i'm sure we'll go through this again.

Goalposts were never changed.

I just got tired of saying the same thing using different words. At some point it just becomes your own responsibility to understand what is said.