Yes polls done by people who projected a 98% chance of a Hillary victory should absolutely be…
Leo23
12

So… you think the approval polls are bunk, but you believe Fox News’ own research that 78% of Trump coverage in the mainstream media is negative? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that wasn’t a particularly scientific study on Fox News’ part…

This is exactly the moronic culture that Fox News and the Republicans have produced. Even IF someone was predicting a 98% chance of Hillary winning (I think most had it in the 70s), 2% is still a non-zero chance. So while Trump’s victory is an outlier, it was still possible, and shouldn’t disqualify the methodology. And yes, Trump ended up having a lot of paths to victory, but each of those paths was won by an extremely narrow margin in basically a perfect storm.

My point is, while rational people use statistics as predictors and look at the results to refine their models, people (mostly Republicans) love to take outliers as examples of why math/science can’t be believed. Instead of looking at jobs numbers over an extended period of time, they always say “Tell that to the small business owner in Weehawken, NJ…” or “I talked to a single mother of three who doesn’t think who feels hopeless and ignored in this job market…” and try to make some sort of policy around that or coal miners or something. Or use the fact that it’s snowing outside to deny climate change, or the fact that “global warming” is an inaccurate description of climate change and if scientists got that wrong they must be wrong about everything else.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.