247
248

Rule 6 - ಠ_ಠPROOF FiveThirtyEight rigged their polling average over the past week in order to manufacture a fake post-DNC bump for Clinton. Between July 29th and August 7th, *every* poll going back to Nov 2015 was re-adjusted by an average of 8 points in favor of Clinton. (self.conspiracy)

MYGODWHATHAVEIDONE が 投稿

FiveThirtyEight has three models that adjust and weight the polling average according to a number of factors – Polls-Plus, Polls-Only, and Now-Cast. Now-Cast has the least "smoothing" of the win percentage forecasts.

Here is an image of the most recent National Polling average produced by the Now-Cast model: https://i.sli.mg/eznBiZ.png

You can see that in this model Trump took a slim lead from July 25 through July 29th. So we would naturally expect many (although not all) polls from that period to show Trump in the lead.

When you scroll down you can see the most recent polls being given the highest weight by the model. If you click on "Show More Polls" you can see a list of the previous polls from earlier in the election season. Here is a screenshot of the Now-Cast for today, August 7th: http://sli.mg/LScz0n

Here is a picture of the polls from the period when Trump had a lead according to the 538 model (shown is any poll that included July 25th or July 29th): https://i.sli.mg/XOva19.jpg

Notice that not a single poll, after 538's adjustment, shows Trump with a lead. How is it possible that Trump had a lead for five days without ever once coming out ahead in 538's model? What happened to erase after-the-fact the lead that Trump had during that period?

I went to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to look for snapshots of the 538 National Polling average page, and the most recent snapshot they took (coincidentally) was on July 29th, the last day of Trump's lead. Here is the snapshot (you have to manually select "Now-Cast" in the sidebar to the left, because I can't link directly to it): https://web.archive.org/web/20160729151320/http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/

What is immediately clear is that there are many polls showing Trump as the adjusted leader, as you would expect for Trump to show up as the leader in the chart produced by the model. How did this lead disappear between July 29th and today?

I decided to look at individual polls themselves to see what happened to the adjustment that 538 gives each poll. In their methodology page, Nate Pyrite explains the factors that go into their poll adjustments. The most important is the "house effects" adjustment, that corrects for the bias of each individual polling firm, some of which are known to produce results favoring Republicans and others favoring Democrats to different degrees.

So what happened to the adjustments of polls from the period of Trump's lead? Below is a table showing what happened to each individual poll between July 29th and now. Adjustment is shown in the table as negative when it perceives the poll as biased toward Clinton and corrects toward Trump, and positive when it perceives the poll as biased toward Trump and corrects toward Clinton.

Poll July 29th Adj Today's Adj Change
Jul. 22-26 Ipsos -2 +3 +5
Jul. 21-22 Gravis Marketing 0 +6 +6
Jul. 22-24 CBS News/New York Times 0 +5 +5
Jul. 22-28 USC Dornsife/LA Times +3 +9 +6
Jul. 22-24 Morning Consult -1 +5 +6
Jul. 23-24 YouGov +1 +6 +5
Jul. 22-24 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. -1 +5 +6
Jul. 26-27 Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research +1 +5 +4
Jul. 18-24 SurveyMonkey -2 +4 +6
Jul. 22 RABA Research -2 +5 +7
Jul. 14-16 Monmouth University -3 +5 +8
Jul. 12-16 RKM Research and Communications, Inc. -2 +6 +8
Jul. 21-24 University of Delaware -1 +5 +6
Jul. 9-13 NBC News/Wall Street Journal -4 +3 +7
Jul. 13-18 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner -4 +3 +7
Jul. 21-22 Echelon Insights -1 +6 +7
Jul. 5-9 Marist College -5 +3 +8
Jul. 17-20 American Research Group -1 +5 +6
Jul. 11-14 ABC News/Washington Post -1 +6 +7
Jul. 12-15 icitizen -3 +4 +7
Jul. 7-11 GfK Group -3 +4 +7
Jul. 8-12 CBS News/New York Times -3 +5 +8
Jul. 13-16 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. -3 +4 +7
Jun. 21-27 Quinnipiac University -3 +5 +8
Jun. 26-28 Fox News -4 +4 +8
Jun. 26-29 Suffolk University -5 +4 +9
Jun. 15-26 Pew Research Center -6 +2 +8
Jul. 15-17 YouGov -1 +6 +7
Jun. 27-28 Public Policy Polling -4 +4 +8
Jun. 24-29 IBD/TIPP -5 +3 +8
Jun. 28-29 Zogby Interactive/JZ Analytics -7 +1 +8
Jun. 20-23 ABC News/Washington Post -4 +4 +8
Jun. 8 SurveyUSA -5 +4 +9
Jun. 19-24 Atlantic Media/Heartland Monitor -6 +2 +8
Jun. 15-19 Monmouth University -6 +3 +9
Jul. 21-25 Ipsos -2 +3 +5
Jul. 18-19 Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research 0 +7 +7
Jun. 10-13 Selzer & Company -8 0 +8
Jun. 19-23 NBC News/Wall Street Journal -7 +2 +9
Average +7

I could continue, but you get the point. Here is a spreadsheet comparing every single poll from July 29th to its counterpart today, August 7th. The average re-adjustment in favor of Clinton was 7.9 points.

In the Now-Cast today, Nate Pyrite has Clinton leading Trump by 7.5 points (44.5 to 37). But this post-DNC bounce may have been entirely manufactured by re-weighting every single polling firm by 4-9 points in Clinton's favor. Is it remotely plausible that the house effects of every single polling firm were discovered since July 29th to be heavily biased towards Trump, necessitating radical across-the-board re-adjustment? And that this discovery just so happened to coincide with the end of the DNC? Not even remotely plausible.

Given that Hillary's lead today is reported to be 7.5 points, but the above table shows an average shift of 7 points in Hillary's favor, it is plausible that Hillary's lead today would be only 0.5 points if the weighting from July 29th were still being used.

Nate Pyrite has clearly and ham-handedly cooked the books in order to produce a post-DNC bounce for Hillary Clinton, sacrificing what little integrity and honesty he might still have had before this.

全 57 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]sammythemc 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

So I guess this officially marks the start of the "unskewed polls" portion of this election.

[–]Jack_Lives_Here 20ポイント21ポイント  (10子コメント)

Your username is decently fitting, as this must have taken a decent amount of work. Good on you.

General reminder that you (yes, you, reading this) need to take up responsibility in your local area to demand that your city government USE PAPER BALLOTS IN THE ELECTION. Voting machines must be terminated. Gather all the information required to convince the council of this and present it to them in a town hall or other public venue where others can hear.

[–][削除されました]  (9子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Jack_Lives_Here 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Stop acting like a moron. Obama signs his death warrant if he suspends anything.

    [–]Scroon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That will be the entire problem.

    [–]Lb3pHj -6ポイント-5ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Why are you still talking about old news?

    [–]Jack_Lives_Here 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Why are you still shitposting?

    [–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–]Jack_Lives_Here 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

      So no substance for your claims. Thanks for admitting you were just shitposting.

      [–]Lb3pHj -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Nope.

      [–]Jack_Lives_Here 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Again, thanks for confirming that you are talking about the lack of substance.

      [–]SovereignMan[M] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Rule 10. Removed. Final warning.

      [–][deleted] 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

      edit: Here's more evidence

      Holy shit. They're biasing in the wrong direction.

      YouGov historically leans left according to 538's adjustments. They say that, on average, YouGov gives a 1.6 polling boost to Democrats.

      Why, then, did they bias Trump's polls towards the Democrats? If they wanted to counteract the bias of the poll, it should have been towards the Republicans. That would mean that Trump would go from +2 to +3.6, not +2 to +1.

      [–]MauledByPorcupines 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Is this true for every poll, or only dem-leaning ones?

      [–][deleted] 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

      They're adjusting all polls toward Hillary. That should be expected for Republican-leaning polls, but not for Dem-leaning.

      [–]FunLovingMonster 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      FiveThirtyEight and DailyKos are paid promoters for Hillary Clinton masquerading as journalists.

      [–]jr4693 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      I just tweeted your info, hope you don't mind!

      [–]HAESisAMyth 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Or the bump was the "convention bump"

      Lots of airtime and "celebs"

      [–]MYGODWHATHAVEIDONE[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

      No, the convention bump is reflected in the raw poll numbers. What changed was the adjustment that 538 applies to every poll to correct for the "house effect" bias of each different pollster. Except this appears to have been an across the board adjustment of 8 toward Clinton, implying that every pollster has been producing polls biased towards Trump by 8 points. And that they only discovered this following the DNC. And that they didn't report what would otherwise be major story about the deficiencies of all national polling done this election cycle.

      [–]TheUltimateSalesman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      More importantly, it makes election fraud easier to swallow later.

      [–]I_Lurrve_Science[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

      FiveThirtyEight is read by millions including thousands with advanced degrees in statistics, but you're the only one to catch his bias?

      [–]MYGODWHATHAVEIDONE[S] 20ポイント21ポイント  (7子コメント)

      Yes? Someone has to be the first one to notice something. I have a PhD in political science, have taken quantitative methodology at the graduate level, and my dissertation did a lot with nonparametric inferential statistics. Nate Silver has a bachelor's degree.

      [–]I_Lurrve_Science[🍰] 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

      And why does RealClearPolitics show an almost identical bump for Clinton?

      [–]MYGODWHATHAVEIDONE[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

      They don't adjust for house effect one way or the other. There's no adjustment to manipulate. At 538 they turned corrections for pro-Clinton bias into corrections for pro-Trump bias, and they took existing corrections for pro-Trump bias and amplified them further. This was an across the board 8 point shift to the house effects of every pollster.

      [–]setecordas 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Let's say that you are correct, and 538 has been juggling the numbers to favor Clinton. Have you contacted any one there to discuss your findings? Are you going over this with any other statisticians to work out just what is going on?

      [–]MYGODWHATHAVEIDONE[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Not yet, I just found this last night at 3am.

      [–]OmgKidGetAJob 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      /u/setecordias might actually have a point, but sadly I think he has little understanding of how this shit actually works lol. You, OP (great job btw, im jealous, this reminds of the movie The Big Short) can contact all the local media, government, or authority figures you want, but the chances are slim that they will listen... Which is no reason to not try. Just trying to input some realism on behalf of the commentor

      [–]setecordas 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You missed the point of my question. It's one thing to make a case like OP made, gather all the evidence, and present it to an echo chamber where any one is unlikely to have any expertise to evaluate it. It's another, however, to present it to people who would have expertise in the matter and who could evaluate it. If OP has a PhD in statistics, then OP likely has a number of peers in the field who could honestly evaluate his evidence. If 538 made an error or committed some sort of fraud, then it is OP's ethical duty to present his analysis so they be given the opportunity to:

      A. Become aware of any mistakes B. Correct any mistakes they made C. Correct any mistakes OP made D. Make an excuse of some sort

      As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."

      [–]Uhillbilly 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Move along, nothing to see here, ignore the man behind curtain.

      [–]EvilPhd666 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      "margin of error"

      [–]LiquidRainbowX 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I think the reason you're seeing the big disparity is if you're calculating these from nowcast then you have to take into effect all the other weights(which is impossible to figure out really or fact check for that matter).

      If you're noticing it from strictly polls only and not polls+/nowcast.. then you need to take into factor the previous days polls they're using polls from up to a week ago, now those polls have less weight but trump wasn't doing well for many of them. The other thing you need to factor in is that STATE polls hold much more weight in terms of their forecast than NATIONAL polls.

      For the polls only things they don't count the bounce, but she still was leading polls in general, if I'm not mistaken. You need to look at the polling data from the previous window that they state their using. It doesn't look at that surprising to me given that, but I'm not willing to dig. Each of the previous polls loses significance but say it was a leading poll from yesterday and the day before by hillary that's going to add to the weight. Is there a bias for hillary from 538? Probably. Would 538 keep it's so-called integrity? I don't know.

      [–]Nofooling 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Impressive insights into 538's tomfoolery. Every part of the media machine has to do its part to ensure that woman is elected. It's a sad election in so many ways.

      [–]rbianco68 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      When Trump wins, 538 will be finished in my humble opinion. 538 exists to placate the liberals and Nate can get away with lying to them once, not twice.