By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lafiel on 16 March 2017
Edit Thread
irstupid said:
Lafiel said:

I'm talking about exit polls (a poll taken directly after the vote), not about the vote count or political polls during the campaign

because that's what barneystinson attacked in his first post in this thread "Based on exit polling. Right... The same exit polling that was horribly off in the us elections, and said that brexit was a lost cause? "

Shouldn't exit polling be the easiest thing int he world to keep segregated and determine who is winning each state?

If you poll someone in Michigan who they voted for, and they say Hillary. That is one vote for HIllary in MICHIGAN. That is also one vote for hillary in the U.S., but that is irrelivent.

Now I can see why exit pollig is insanely bad. Location, location, location.

Where do you think the exit polling happens? In places wiht a lot of people. And which way do people predominately vote in big cities. They take that data and then for teh rest of the state they just "guess". Basically just take the results from last election and assume the same for this election. if you watched the election results that night, you would see them constantly surprised and showing the counties that were Obama before but went Trump this time. 

The reason for th surprise was because they never exit polled there. They can't be everywhere and thus just assume nothing will change. 

now you are finally having a glimpse why it's so hard to do a representative exit poll for individual states (there are far more factors than simply not being "everywhere", but it is an important one) and much easier to do one nation wide

and there was little need to, as the nation wide popular vote usually gave a very good indication who would take the electoral college (Al Gore won by 550k or a mere 0.5% - by all means a statistical tie)