Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Oh so you were calling me mathematically illiterate ok, whatever makes you feel good man.
My claim is that aggregators were staunchly dem, and that the democratic party wanted the perception of a win in the air as it can work to a party advantage and usually does.
Again , ton of leftists right now attack Silver because he doesn't put Harris chances higher
Luciom,
This entire argument is just terrible. First, you have no evidence that the Clinton campaign or the DNC wanted the polls to be skewed in favor of HRC. It's true in some game theory scenarios both inside and outside of politics that undecided people want to be on the winning side. But in politics specifically, it is also true that people tend to stay home when they perceive that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Low turnout is the last thing that Democrats want in presidential elections. There is a reason why, in every election, supporters of the Democratic party do public service announcements encouraging people to vote.
Second, you have no evidence that the Clinton campaign or the DNC actually caused polls to be skewed in favor of HRC.
Third, as you yourself have acknowledged, pollsters were subject to a lot of criticism after the Trump won the 2016 election. We can debate how much of that criticism was valid and how much of it was the product of statistical illiteracy, but in any case, it was entirely foreseeable the pollsters would be skewered if Trump won. Your proposition is these people were willing to take on a significant risk of embarrassment (and perhaps damage to professional reputation) in order to skew polls in favor of HRC. That seems highly improbable to me.
Fourth, a lot of these polling companies have been around for many election cycles. They do not inevitably skew in favor of Democrats. To the contrary, there have been plenty of presidential elections in which the polls correctly suggested that the Democrat would lose.