Sins of Omission (A fascinating article on polling...) by 6ixStringJack

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Sins of Omission (A fascinating article on polling...)

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 01:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 84
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:54 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/3406583/sins-of-
omission-real-clear-politics-polling-fivethirtyeight/

I didn't know any of the history of polling aggregators before reading this.

I didn't know that Real Clear Politics predated FiveThirtyEight by 6 years.

I didn't know that Real Clear Politics invented polling aggregates... or at least any that were regularly used by us plebs or even journalists in the media. I don't know why I just assumed that aggregates were around forever when it's a relatively new thing.

As for the other behind the scenes stuff going on, especially at fivethirtyeight and other later outfits and the background and extent of cherrypicking their polls... Well, though most of that is new information for me, I could have intuited as much just by the historical results of all the firms.

Following Real Clear Politics is not only why I was right about who won the election, but why I was right on so many specifics of how and by how much as well.

It's not even that they were necessarily right on everything, but as I was saying back then it was their consistency on how accurate overall they were when compared to anyone else out there historically. I could look back on two historical cycles of polling data they had, compare it to what we seen now and intuit those results. And yeah... I typed out a ton of math leading up to the election, but that was just for proof. Yes, to myself of course, but I think more for the benefit of everyone else. So people wouldn't accuse me of just pulling stuff out of my ass. But I already Knew it without doing all that math. If I didn't, I wouldn't have done the math. Why would I want to do all of that work every day if it was showing me results that I did not like?

Until RCP gives me reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to follow their polls. And I'm going to compare them to the past like I did last time, which kind of makes me an aggregator of the aggregator.

My prediction was even more accurate than theirs was in 2024. But I had one ability that by sheer virtue of the very reason why they are the most accurate polling firm they will never have. I can aggregate their new results with their old stuff. They are stuck presenting the information as it comes exactly the way they always have. That is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a very good thing.

I'm just going that further step to illustrate why I got it so right. I'm not shit talking RCP at all. I just had the benefit of being able to do comparisons between 3 election cycles where they need to treat each as a separate entity.

Oh... And Alan Lichtman is still my bitch.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE