The reliance on polls, and polling firms, themselves, has been affected by the advent of differing technologies until their accuracy must now seriously be called into question. The 2016 election saw the greatest number of polling firms in any US election, almost entirely predicting a Clinton landslide, while only political scientists knew this to be inaccurate.
- The advent of caller ID has affected a linear model clearly depicting a decrease in poll accuracy
- The mysterious and unproven claims of 538 were used as a baseline to confirm the results of polls run by the major networks in the US, or in partnerships between the major networks and less-than-scientific Democratic Party-funded polling firms, as if it were an authority.
- Only one polling firm, the oldest one still up and running in the US, the Gallup Poll, reflected with any accuracy that Trump would win.
|Nate Silver's June 29, 2016 declaration seems funny, now. What is funnier is, who is he, why did people believe him, and what do his numbers say about stealing chickens from the same village twice?|
I have been in political science for a long time, and neither I, nor any one of my professors, nor any fellow graduates, have ever heard the name, Nate Silver. This person, whom may be honestly claiming to be a statistician, however, is not an honest statistician.
His firm, 538, named for the number of electoral votes available for a candidate to win, was providing numbers so false that it bears true investigation as to where he came from, and how he managed to fool so many people. I couldn't break the spell, even with people I know, people I went to high school with, since 1981!
They bought his backstory, however, and they bought it completely: hook, line, and sinker. So, in 2016, when Silver, via his 538 website, fielded numbers never heard before in the HISTORY OF AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE, numbers like, "Hillary has an almost 93% chance of beating Trump!"(Nate Silver, after the first televised debate between Trump and Clinton) alarm bells were sounding on our side of the University.
Strangely absent it is, and continues to remain, that any critical examination of Silver, as well as his bombastic, and "ready for fake news" claims like, "Hillary is Still Ahead! 80% chance of winning!"(Election Day, 8:00am EST, 538 Website) has yet to be undertaken. And this seems to indicate more of it in 2020. But in 2016, all we could do is wait for the reality to come home to roost. Political scientists pretty much do that for a living. But had I known, I still love people enough to ask them, "Now, why did you believe 538, again?"
Noting their answers, normally not based in fact, but in suspicions that Trump, somehow, stole the election. Hmmm...I seem to recall yet another Clinton lie, "If I win, he (Trump) will not accept the result. But if he wins, I will be surprised, but I shall not question the result because I trust the American people." (HClinton, Second Round of the Second Televised Clinton, Trump Debate)
When 2020 comes, and we see this cycle repeat, will you believe us, then?
Nate Silver, as well as his 538 Organization, were effective at smoke and mirrors, and at using biased statistical information to find "trends" that didn't truly exist, and pushing his agenda based on this flawed analysis criteria, but they could not conjure victory despite all the phony effort.
(They were inventing trends, like, who wins the first debate wins the election...the debate was not won by Clinton, this was an assertion pushed by the media. And the qualifying statement, "debate winners also win elections" is just plain horse-hooey. Either that, or Trump won the debate! Which one is it? That is a quantification of yet more reading-into numbers that which 538 wanted to see in political history!)
Silver, and his firm, should both be investigated. Maybe not for being the only causes of the media sensation, but for their part in attempting to subvert the electorate. The journalistic atom bomb of pro Hillary data and media obsession, which the media should be investigated for, was only so much white noise which drowned-out reason.
But media hype is not victory in an election. It is this man, as well as the journalists whom failed to fact check, and check this man out thoroughly, at whom the Clintons, as well as their supporters, should be directing their incredulity.
The seeds of Russiahacked: Black Lives Matter, Loretta Lynch, Obama dogma which nearly destroyed coal mining in America, and the transfer to the Clinton campaign of a general underestimation, and/or apathy, as to how much this injured a huge and unconsulted group of Americans, the Emailgate Scandal, as well: these are the actual reasons Americans disposed themselves of the Clinton brand of controversy/mea culpa laden, and diabolical leadership, which is also ineffective leadership.