| Chrkeller said: Nah. Many (maybe even most) polls literally had Harris winning. Not a single betting firms over the entire campaign ever gave Harris better odds than Trump. I tracked a wide variety of firms, all (that i watched) never had Trump less than 55%. The polls were hot garbage. Almost all polls had harris winning the popular vote.... Polls had 7 states as toss-ups. Meaning 3 to 4 should have flipped Harris. Zero flipped. Iowa was suppse to be on the table, and Trump won by 10+ points. New York and California were closer than Florida. Granted Cali was still counting so potentially has changed. Sorry there was little about polls that were accurate. What makes it worse is they under polled Trump twice before, making this literally three times in a row. I for one have zero trust in polls. The data is out, clearly they have no idea what they are doing. As for odds changing, that typically occurs when one side places more bets than the other, it is a derisk calculation, not a prediction change. Betting firms were way more accurate than polls. Just accept reality, my faith in betting firms was a good position. Your mockery was a bad one. It happens. Edit I agree with Jon Stewart regarding polls. To each their own, but it will be a long time before I give a **** what pollsters are claiming. |
Almost all polls were within the margin of error, so hardly anyone had Harris winning. Even that one Iowa poll was within the margin of error, and it was an outlier because all other polls for the state had Trump winning. Regardless, the polls in general were wrong because they showed a toss-up when it wasn't a close race.
The polls being wrong doesn't make betting firms a good predictive tool though. They just show where the money flows, so your position of faith in them wasn't a good one because at the end of the day it's like putting faith in having random luck at the right time.
BFR said:
Remember the following post from Sept. 13 (Page 79 of this thread, 4th down)
LMAO !!! |
So you show me an old post where I said that the polls aren't accurate in response to my post where I said that I didn't regard polls as accurate. Cool.
| Mnementh said: (...) Let's make up a story. What if, the Democratic presidency instead of telling everyone to suck it up because worldwide economic situation is bad, would be understanding of the problems the working class people face. What if they create programs to help the people that are poor and are hardest hit? What if they supported their people instead of big corporations? (...) |
That is what Kamala Harris ran on. Punish corporations for price gouging, tax cuts for the working class, benefits for first time house buyers.
Trump's policies, if implemented, will cost the working class up to an additional $4,000 a year when they are already stretched thin as it is.
One policy proposal is good for the working class, the other one is bad. This is a very easy call, so how could Trump win the election regardless? Because it's like sundin said, there are too many idiots who don't understand the economy.
In the aftermath of this election there have been way too many analyses that were built on the premise that American voters decided in a reasonable and rational manner, but Occam's Razor shouldn't be ignored. When you consider the stark contrast between the two candidates and their policies in all areas, this was the easiest decision ever, yet the American people still bungled it. A lot of them voted against their own financial interests.
Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.
