The national polls got it right in 2016

[Sandy Shanks]

Trump's followers would have us believe that Trump defied all the national polls and won the election. They could not be more wrong.

In the first place, the national polls gauge the popular vote, not the Electoral College.

In the second place, Trump lost the popular vote by three million. Trump won in the Electoral College because voters in small states (in terms of population) have a larger say in the Presidential election than the voters in large states.

American University Professor Allan Lichtman who became famous for accurately predicting the winner of every Presidential election since 1984 -- including 2016 -- has issued his verdict for 2020: Joe Biden will defeat President Trump.

But the historian got it wrong. The Times writes, "Right now, polls say Joe Biden has a healthy lead over President Trump. But we’ve been here before (cue 2016), and the polls were, frankly, wrong."

No, they were not!

National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result. One last look: 2016 polls actually got a lot right | TheHill

The election was won by less than 80,000 votes. Axios reports that Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes; if Clinton had done one point better in each state, she'd have won the electoral vote, too."

Nearly everyone today has forgotten the effect James Comey had on the election. Eleven days before Election Day, FBI Director Comey reopened the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton. Clinton had a substantial lead in the polls, but in the week that followed Comey's announcement her lead quickly evaporated. Two days before the election, Comey issued a "sorry about that" and closed the investigation for lack of anything new.

The Hill reports, "Exit polling found that late-deciders in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin broke for Trump by double-digit margins as high as 29 points."

During the election campaign, every voter in the country knew that the FBI was investigating Clinton. The FBI was also investigating the Trump campaign for its alleged cooperation with Russia. Voters were not aware of that investigation until after the election.

 

[Grandpappy]

And, sadly for the leftists, Biden is basically the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz (If he only had a brain), and Trump will win again.

 

[Mycroft]

Trump's followers would have us believe that Trump defied all the national polls and won the election. They could not be more wrong.

In the first place, the national polls gauge the popular vote, not the Electoral College.

In the second place, Trump lost the popular vote by three million. Trump won in the Electoral College because voters in small states (in terms of population) have a larger say in the Presidential election than the voters in large states.

American University Professor Allan Lichtman who became famous for accurately predicting the winner of every Presidential election since 1984 -- including 2016 -- has issued his verdict for 2020: Joe Biden will defeat President Trump.

But the historian got it wrong. The Times writes, "Right now, polls say Joe Biden has a healthy lead over President Trump. But we’ve been here before (cue 2016), and the polls were, frankly, wrong."

No, they were not!

National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result. One last look: 2016 polls actually got a lot right | TheHill

The election was won by less than 80,000 votes. Axios reports that Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes; if Clinton had done one point better in each state, she'd have won the electoral vote, too."

Nearly everyone today has forgotten the effect James Comey had on the election. Eleven days before Election Day, FBI Director Comey reopened the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton. Clinton had a substantial lead in the polls, but in the week that followed Comey's announcement her lead quickly evaporated. Two days before the election, Comey issued a "sorry about that" and closed the investigation for lack of anything new.

The Hill reports, "Exit polling found that late-deciders in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin broke for Trump by double-digit margins as high as 29 points."

During the election campaign, every voter in the country knew that the FBI was investigating Clinton. The FBI was also investigating the Trump campaign for its alleged cooperation with Russia. Voters were not aware of that investigation until after the election.

This is from RCP...



So no...they did NOT have the electoral college predictions correct.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Trump's followers would have us believe that Trump defied all the national polls and won the election. They could not be more wrong.

In the first place, the national polls gauge the popular vote, not the Electoral College.

In the second place, Trump lost the popular vote by three million. Trump won in the Electoral College because voters in small states (in terms of population) have a larger say in the Presidential election than the voters in large states.

American University Professor Allan Lichtman who became famous for accurately predicting the winner of every Presidential election since 1984 -- including 2016 -- has issued his verdict for 2020: Joe Biden will defeat President Trump.

But the historian got it wrong. The Times writes, "Right now, polls say Joe Biden has a healthy lead over President Trump. But we’ve been here before (cue 2016), and the polls were, frankly, wrong."

No, they were not!

National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result. One last look: 2016 polls actually got a lot right | TheHill

The election was won by less than 80,000 votes. Axios reports that Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes; if Clinton had done one point better in each state, she'd have won the electoral vote, too."

Nearly everyone today has forgotten the effect James Comey had on the election. Eleven days before Election Day, FBI Director Comey reopened the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton. Clinton had a substantial lead in the polls, but in the week that followed Comey's announcement her lead quickly evaporated. Two days before the election, Comey issued a "sorry about that" and closed the investigation for lack of anything new.

The Hill reports, "Exit polling found that late-deciders in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin broke for Trump by double-digit margins as high as 29 points."

During the election campaign, every voter in the country knew that the FBI was investigating Clinton. The FBI was also investigating the Trump campaign for its alleged cooperation with Russia. Voters were not aware of that investigation until after the election.

IMO the problem lies in the fact that 48 States use a "winner-take-all" approach.

For example, CA has 55 electors, 2 for the Senators, and 53 others for the Representatives.

However, while Hillary got 4 million votes in CA, Trump got 2 million...yet ALL 55 electors went to Hillary.

IMO this silly National Popular Vote initiative is even more disastrous. It literally deprives every State where a majority of that State's population may have voted for the "losing" candidate of THEIR purpose in voting.

Why vote at all if you are not a citizen of a minority of the States with the largest populations who always decide the winner?

 

[Cardinal]

IMO the problem lies in the fact that 48 States use a "winner-take-all" approach.

For example, CA has 55 electors, 2 for the Senators, and 53 others for the Representatives.

However, while Hillary got 4 million votes in CA, Trump got 2 million...yet ALL 55 electors went to Hillary.

IMO this silly National Popular Vote initiative is even more disastrous. It literally deprives every State where a majority of that State's population may have voted for the "losing" candidate of THEIR purpose in voting.

There are no "states" in a national popular vote. If you want every individual vote to be recognized, then by definition you support a national popular vote.

 

[Practical]

Polls are soothsaying. It starts from the false premise that everyone will answer honestly, and that right there should be enough to toss em out or print them in the Enquirer. I get that people want a gauge to judge by, but if you are putting all of your faith in polls and believe they cannot be manipulated, well...good luck =)

 

[Xilnik]

And, sadly for the leftists, Biden is basically the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz (If he only had a brain), and Trump will win again.

Trump has the hat trick for The Wizard of Oz.

 

[Anagram]

IMO this silly National Popular Vote initiative is even more disastrous. It literally deprives every State where a majority of that State's population may have voted for the "losing" candidate of THEIR purpose in voting.

Why vote at all if you are not a citizen of a minority of the States with the largest populations who always decide the winner?

Not necessarily in favor of the NPVIC, but I don't understand this argument. Your vote still counts toward the determinitive "national vote" total which would decide the election in this scenario. Why would you not vote?

 

[Anagram]

Polls are soothsaying. It starts from the false premise that everyone will answer honestly, and that right there should be enough to toss em out or print them in the Enquirer. I get that people want a gauge to judge by, but if you are putting all of your faith in polls and believe they cannot be manipulated, well...good luck =)

And yet, they have performed incredibly well over the years. Some misses for sure, but overall if you are looking at the polls to predict elections, you're going to be doing a very good job predicting.

 

[Phys251]

Trump's followers would have us believe that Trump defied all the national polls and won the election. They could not be more wrong.

In the first place, the national polls gauge the popular vote, not the Electoral College.

In the second place, Trump lost the popular vote by three million. Trump won in the Electoral College because voters in small states (in terms of population) have a larger say in the Presidential election than the voters in large states.

American University Professor Allan Lichtman who became famous for accurately predicting the winner of every Presidential election since 1984 -- including 2016 -- has issued his verdict for 2020: Joe Biden will defeat President Trump.

But the historian got it wrong. The Times writes, "Right now, polls say Joe Biden has a healthy lead over President Trump. But we’ve been here before (cue 2016), and the polls were, frankly, wrong."

No, they were not!

National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result. One last look: 2016 polls actually got a lot right | TheHill

The election was won by less than 80,000 votes. Axios reports that Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes; if Clinton had done one point better in each state, she'd have won the electoral vote, too."

Nearly everyone today has forgotten the effect James Comey had on the election. Eleven days before Election Day, FBI Director Comey reopened the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton. Clinton had a substantial lead in the polls, but in the week that followed Comey's announcement her lead quickly evaporated. Two days before the election, Comey issued a "sorry about that" and closed the investigation for lack of anything new.

The Hill reports, "Exit polling found that late-deciders in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin broke for Trump by double-digit margins as high as 29 points."

During the election campaign, every voter in the country knew that the FBI was investigating Clinton. The FBI was also investigating the Trump campaign for its alleged cooperation with Russia. Voters were not aware of that investigation until after the election.

People who refuse to properly read polls are pretty much the same people who refuse to properly read weather forecasts.

If a weather forecast gives a 70% chance of rain, and then it doesn't rain, that does not mean that the forecast was wrong. It clearly said that there was a 30% chance it wouldn't rain, odds that are not that difficult to overcome.

If a political website gives a candidate a 70% chance to win, and then they don't win, that does not mean that the forecast was wrong. It clearly said that there was a 30% chance they wouldn't win, odds that are not that difficult to overcome.

This is stuff that can be learned in a high school statistics class, but apparently too many adults never got this lesson. :shrug:

 

[Captain Adverse]

Not necessarily in favor of the NPVIC, but I don't understand this argument. Your vote still counts toward the determinitive "national vote" total which would decide the election in this scenario. Why would you not vote?

Simply because I recognize the purpose of the Electoral College and it's use to keep STATE's and THIER populations the primary factor in deciding who is President.

I am honestly very concerned about the USA becoming a modified version of the Panem of the Hunger Games, with a minority of States with the largest populations becoming the sole focus of all politics and political power.

 

[Condor060]

Trump's followers would have us believe that Trump defied all the national polls and won the election. They could not be more wrong.

Its too bad there are hundreds of election night videos out there saying the exact opposite.

For example, these were the overwhelming predictions from the left via exit polls.

1. Clinton will win Florida 55.1%
FAIL
2. Clinton will win NC 55.5%
FAIL
3. Clinton will win PA 77%
FAIL
4. Clinton will win Wisconsin 83.5%
FAIL
5. Clinton will win Maine 82.6%
FAIL

FiveThirtyEight gave Trump the highest projected chance of winning on election night of 28.6%

Now the story changes? Not likely.

In the first place, the national polls gauge the popular vote, not the Electoral College.

In the second place, Trump lost the popular vote by three million. Trump won in the Electoral College because voters in small states (in terms of population) have a larger say in the Presidential election than the voters in large states.

Anyone who has the most basic math skills knows Hillary won the total popular vote by 2.4 million votes. At the same time she won California by over 6 million more votes than Trump. Which means, Hillary was down by 4 million votes prior to her winning California in 49 states.

American University Professor Allan Lichtman who became famous for accurately predicting the winner of every Presidential election since 1984 -- including 2016 -- has issued his verdict for 2020: Joe Biden will defeat President Trump.

Funny, The left called him a lunitic for predicting Trumps win in 2016 as he was the only one making that statement. And he didn't predict every presidential winner going back to 1984, he used his model to show how those outcomes support his model.

Nice try thought. lol

But the historian got it wrong. The Times writes, "Right now, polls say Joe Biden has a healthy lead over President Trump. But we’ve been here before (cue 2016), and the polls were, frankly, wrong."

No, they were not!

National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result. One last look: 2016 polls actually got a lot right | TheHill

The election was won by less than 80,000 votes. Axios reports that Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes; if Clinton had done one point better in each state, she'd have won the electoral vote, too."

Trump only had a 28% chance of winning the election going into 2016 as confirmed by hundreds of videos covering the 2016 election night and the next days reporting ALL complaining how far off ALL the polls and exit polling was. But you tell yourself what ever you need too.

 

[Ontologuy]

Trump's followers would have us believe that Trump defied all the national polls and won the election. They could not be more wrong.

In the first place, the national polls gauge the popular vote, not the Electoral College.

In the second place, Trump lost the popular vote by three million. Trump won in the Electoral College because voters in small states (in terms of population) have a larger say in the Presidential election than the voters in large states.

American University Professor Allan Lichtman who became famous for accurately predicting the winner of every Presidential election since 1984 -- including 2016 -- has issued his verdict for 2020: Joe Biden will defeat President Trump.

But the historian got it wrong. The Times writes, "Right now, polls say Joe Biden has a healthy lead over President Trump. But we’ve been here before (cue 2016), and the polls were, frankly, wrong."

No, they were not!

National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result. One last look: 2016 polls actually got a lot right | TheHill

The election was won by less than 80,000 votes. Axios reports that Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes; if Clinton had done one point better in each state, she'd have won the electoral vote, too."

Nearly everyone today has forgotten the effect James Comey had on the election. Eleven days before Election Day, FBI Director Comey reopened the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton. Clinton had a substantial lead in the polls, but in the week that followed Comey's announcement her lead quickly evaporated. Two days before the election, Comey issued a "sorry about that" and closed the investigation for lack of anything new.

The Hill reports, "Exit polling found that late-deciders in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin broke for Trump by double-digit margins as high as 29 points."

During the election campaign, every voter in the country knew that the FBI was investigating Clinton. The FBI was also investigating the Trump campaign for its alleged cooperation with Russia. Voters were not aware of that investigation until after the election.

When you say the national polls gauge the popular vote, not the electoral college .. that's not entirely true.

National polls still tabulate their results state-by-state in addition to summing up the nation.

The problem is that the polls were sufficiently inaccurate in key states.

Here's an article that takes a deeper look into what happened in 2016: Polls show Trump is losing to Joe Biden. They said the same thing 4 years ago against Hillary Clinton

 

[Anagram]

Simply because I recognize the purpose of the Electoral College and it's use to keep STATE's and THIER populations the primary factor in deciding who is President.

I am honestly very concerned about the USA becoming a modified version of the Panem of the Hunger Games, with a minority of States with the largest populations becoming the sole focus of all politics and political power.

So you wouldn't vote out of protest to the system? I can respect that, though I would not make that choice.

It seemed as though you were arguing there would be no point to voting as far as determining the election, which I would argue would be less true than in today's system where in 35+ states we all know the outcome beforehand. There's really no point for me to vote in Missouri, given that I know Trump will carry it and our 11 electoral votes.

I do think your second section is fairly strong hyperbole. California cast 10.2% of the electoral votes in the last election and 10.3% of the total popular votes. The percentage's actual shift is so minuscule, I seriously doubt there would be great effect. Although politicians may have reason to cater to states they would normally ignore in favor of Florida, the Rust Belt, New Hampshire, etc.

 

[Anagram]

Anyone who has the most basic math skills knows Hillary won the total popular vote by 2.4 million votes. At the same time she won California by over 6 million more votes than Trump. Which means, Hillary was down by 4 million votes prior to her winning California in 49 states.

Those numbers are off. She won nationally by about 2.9 million and California 4.25. I really don't understand why conservatives make this point though. California is a state, and it has 12% of all Americans, so I don't know what point can be made by just arbitrarily taking it away and saying that Trump won everywhere else. If you take away Ohio and Texas, which cast about the same number of votes as California, it goes back to a Hillary lead for the remaining 47 states. Does that mean anything? No.

Edit: Arbitrarily taking away CA, TX, and OH actually leaves Trump with a lead of less than 100k. Taking away CA, TX, and TN leaves Clinton with a lead in the remaining 47 states.

 

[Condor060]

Those numbers are off. She won nationally by about 2.9 million and California 4.25. I really don't understand why conservatives make this point though. California is a state, and it has 12% of all Americans, so I don't know what point can be made by just arbitrarily taking it away and saying that Trump won everywhere else. If you take away Ohio and Texas, which cast about the same number of votes as California, it goes back to a Hillary lead for the remaining 47 states. Does that mean anything? No.

What other state did Hillary win by over 4 million votes? The point is, until California was counted, she was behind in the popular vote and she only won it by one state. The left loves to taught her popular vote win like it was national wide. It wasn't.

 

[Trypt]

Those numbers are off. She won nationally by about 2.9 million and California 4.25. I really don't understand why conservatives make this point though. California is a state, and it has 12% of all Americans, so I don't know what point can be made by just arbitrarily taking it away and saying that Trump won everywhere else. If you take away Ohio and Texas, which cast about the same number of votes as California, it goes back to a Hillary lead for the remaining 47 states. Does that mean anything? No.

It's hugely important, it means that short of California, Trump was up even in the popular vote in the other 49 states. You pretending it doesn't matter is the same as the right pretending it's all that matters.

 

[reflechissez]

IMO the problem lies in the fact that 48 States use a "winner-take-all" approach.

For example, CA has 55 electors, 2 for the Senators, and 53 others for the Representatives.

However, while Hillary got 4 million votes in CA, Trump got 2 million...yet ALL 55 electors went to Hillary.

IMO this silly National Popular Vote initiative is even more disastrous. It literally deprives every State where a majority of that State's population may have voted for the "losing" candidate of THEIR purpose in voting.

Why vote at all if you are not a citizen of a minority of the States with the largest populations who always decide the winner?

Sounds like you are arguing FOR a national popular vote.

 

[reflechissez]

Simply because I recognize the purpose of the Electoral College and it's use to keep STATE's and THIER populations the primary factor in deciding who is President.

I am honestly very concerned about the USA becoming a modified version of the Panem of the Hunger Games, with a minority of States with the largest populations becoming the sole focus of all politics and political power.

Do some research on why the electoral college was formed. It was based on appeasing slave states.

 

[Anagram]

What other state did Hillary win by over 4 million votes? The point is, until California was counted, she was behind in the popular vote and she only won it by one state. The left loves to taught her popular vote win like it was national wide. It wasn't.

And if you take away California then Trump only won it by two states. She won the popular vote. It's meaningless for how the president is actually elected, but she won it. I don't see the point in arbitrarily taking out California and pretending that means anything.

 

[reflechissez]

It's hugely important, it means that short of California, Trump was up even in the popular vote in the other 49 states. You pretending it doesn't matter is the same as the right pretending it's all that matters.

Are you asserting that trump won the popular vote in 49 states? May want to check that.

 

[Anagram]

It's hugely important, it means that short of California, Trump was up even in the popular vote in the other 49 states. You pretending it doesn't matter is the same as the right pretending it's all that matters.

And if you take away Texas and Tennessee too then Hillary is up in the remaining 47 states. And if you take away New York then Trump is up in the remaining 46. And then if you take away Alabama and Kentucky Hillary is up in the remaining 44.

If you take away the states where one candidate did the best, it shifts the overall vote. But what's the point of that?

 

[Condor060]

And if you take away California then Trump only won it by two states. She won the popular vote. It's meaningless for how the president is actually elected, but she won it. I don't see the point in arbitrarily taking out California and pretending that means anything.

Because California carries the most votes and the most electoral votes (55). If she didn't win California the electoral return would have been 359 Trump to 172 Hillary.

To try and put California on pace with every other state isn't realistic.

 

[Irwin Corey]

IMO the problem lies in the fact that 48 States use a "winner-take-all" approach.

For example, CA has 55 electors, 2 for the Senators, and 53 others for the Representatives.

However, while Hillary got 4 million votes in CA, Trump got 2 million...yet ALL 55 electors went to Hillary.

IMO this silly National Popular Vote initiative is even more disastrous. It literally deprives every State where a majority of that State's population may have voted for the "losing" candidate of THEIR purpose in voting.

Why vote at all if you are not a citizen of a minority of the States with the largest populations who always decide the winner?

Voting for President by "popular vote" is the ONLY way EACH AmeriCANs vote counts as much as anyone else's. It doesn't matter how big or little your state is your vote means as much as anyone's.

Why vote at all if your vote is diluted by the Electoral Collage, which FAILED it's job, as Hamilton envisioned, to keep a glib unqualified con-man from becoming President.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Because California carries the most votes and the most electoral votes (55). If she didn't win California the electoral return would have been 359 Trump to 172 Hillary.

To try and put California on pace with every other state isn't realistic.

But! IF every AmeriCANs vote counted equally she would have WON by three million votes. To try to hold a fair election when the EC skews the vote isn't possible.