General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Van Jones on Democratic Partys Future: The Clinton Days Are Over You Cant Run and Hide [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)of empirical data we have to measure people's preferences.
I've explained what happened before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2668272
You see, polls that try to determine what is going to happen in an election are actually measuring two things. They are first trying to measure who is going to turn out, and then they are trying to measure what the preferences are of those people that are turning out. We refer to this as "Likely voter polls" as opposed to "Registered voter polls". Registered voter polls are much easier. No turn out needs to be accounted for, its what would happen if EVERYONE turned out.
When you have a major event like Comey in the last few weeks of an election, one of the crucial ways it is felt in the result is that it depresses turnout. The problem is, measuring a change in voters turnout likelihood in the waning weeks of an election and adjusting turnout models is often difficult in the short term. So what happened is that somewhere between 1-5% additional Hillary voters stayed home depending on the state than what was accounted for in the polls. Their preference was still the same. If they had voted they would have voted Hillary. But they didn't turn out. So, back what a likely voter poll is, it has to first get right who is going to turn out and then get right who the preferences are of those folks who are turning out.
What you are attempting to attack, in terms of what I said about what 2016 voters said they want as far as ideology is concerned, is the exit polling of people who voted. This isn't a likely voter poll. No turnout needs to be accounted for here. It's a pretty straightforward survey. You would of course have addressed that if you understood the empirical political analysis that is polling. You don't understand it, but you attacked it anyway. Why? Because you have an agenda.
And because of that agenda, you committed the Arthur Conan Doyle defined sin of twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.