Horse betting odds reflect betting, not probability.
They start with probability, then can be swayed by betting.
1 Like
um, everyone had hillary winning by ginormous margins. based in yes, polls
you want me to admit the opposite of reality
not today
who was predicted as actually winning the election?
No they didnât have her winning by ginormous margins. If you would take the time to look you would see that.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/315145-one-last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right
Of the 13 final national polls conducted the week before the election that tested the four-way presidential contest, only one had Trump ahead and 12 put Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on top.
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.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/12/it_wasnt_the_polls_that_missed_it_was_the_pundits_132333.html
There is a fast-building meme that Donald Trumpâs surprising win on Tuesday reflected a failure of the polls. This is wrong. The story of 2016 is not one of poll failure. It is a story of interpretive failure and a media environment that made it almost taboo to even suggest that Donald Trump had a real chance to win the election.
Favorites win a higher % than 2nd choices in the betting
2nd choices win more than 3rd choice in the betting
And so on and so on.
A crowd of bettors are usually right playing the ponies.
Allan
Lol. But not really, considering the source.
Show me a poll that had Hillary winning by ginormous margins.
You donât have to be an armchair psychologist.
Ears are about all that are necessary. And a brain that doesnât try to tell you what you heard isnât what you heard.
JayJay
196
I predicted or at least stated the possibility of a Trump win all through the summer months, as people here might remember.
I wavered only one time- I thought the Access Hollywood tapes would turn people off.
In retrospect, I donât know why I thought that.
Also the last minute thing with Weinerâs e-mails probably solidified the anti-Hillary vote.
You know who else knew Hillary was in trouble? Her boots on the ground, especially in Wisconsin, where local workers begged the main office to send her there in the last weeks of the campaign.
She ignored themâŚshe relied on her main teamâs flawed analyticsâŚand she stuck to her preferred thing to do which was hang out with rich fat cat donors instead of pressing the flesh.
She ran a terrible, lazy campaign.
Check out one of my first Facebook posts that summer:
3 Likes
opinion piece. after the election. hillary was st 91%
what they based it on doesnt matter. they were gloriously wrong
re-write history, spin it to death, whatever
but they all blew it, save for a couple who were able to hold back their enthusiasm
When Hillary picked Tim Kaine as her running mate I thought she might be in trouble. My pick was Sherrod Brown from the Rust Belt. You are correct that she didnât pay attention to what many on her staff were telling her. And I read a couple of articles that said Bill was also telling her she was not doing enough in some of the central states.
hey i believe you. i thought she would win based on how hard the press promoted her and much the media loved her (gag)
issue here is cnn, nyt, tripping idiots at huffpo etc
hillary was a shoe in winner
i didnt say any polls did
but everyone did because of, well, polls i guess
These opinion pieces are based on facts. Show me one poll that had Hillary at 91%.
Why you guys refuse to do your homework is beyond me.
