SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
The Clinton presidential campaign used a complex computer algorithm called Ada to assist in many of the most important decisions during the race.
According to aides, a raft of polling numbers, public and private, were fed into the algorithm, as well as ground-level voter data meticulously collected by the campaign. Once early voting began, those numbers were factored in, too.
What Ada did, based on all that data, aides said, was run 400,000 simulations a day of what the race against Trump might look like. A report that was spit out would give campaign manager Robby Mook and others a detailed picture of which battleground states were most likely to tip the race in one direction or another — and guide decisions about where to spend time and deploy resources.
Of course, the results are only as good as the data. Since the outcome of the election was different than most poll predictions, it seems like Ada may have had a Garbage In, Garbage Out problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:01PM
That is conspiracy theory logic.
We live in a land of conspiracies, my friend. Either this email [wikileaks.org] is fake, which would be a conspiracy in and of itself, or some media polling is being systematically altered for political reasons. Pick your poison, but there's a conspiracy afoot either way:
Hey, when can we meet? I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:04AM
How can a fucking geek on this fucking website and not know what fucking oversampling [wikipedia.org] means?
I means jesus fucking christ, does hearing the name clinton initiate some sort of mind-wipe where you become more ignorant than the dumbest high-school jock?
That email is talking about polling more people in specific areas in order to reduce the margin of error. [washingtonpost.com]
Something they obviously should have done more of since they got the polls wrong in undersampled areas.
It has nothing to do with "systemically altering" the polls
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING MORONS
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:21PM
I only see one reductionist argument in a vast sea of caps-locked "FUCK"s, accusations of partisanship, and assumptions of ignorance. Surely you understand that oversampling does skew a poll if it isn't properly weighted against -- if so, your whole comment is a distraction that dances around this obvious fact. Could the polls talked about have been weighted to account for this? Sure. I haven't seen any evidence that this was done, and it wouldn't really jive with their stated goal of doing what they can to "maximize what we get out of our media polling." I don't see any good reason that these people should even be involved in making decisions about "media polling." Blatant conspiracy is blatant.
I sometimes go down rabbit holes arguing with ACs, and I really do try to admit when I think I'm wrong. That being said, I don't think you're capable of having a coherent conversation on this topic at this time so I'm not going to bother following you any further. Sincerely, I say: I hope you have a nice day!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:24PM
> Surely you understand that oversampling does skew a poll if it isn't properly weighted against
So now your defense of the dumb is that in a casual email they didn't spell out all of the technical statistical details?
> "maximize what we get out of our media polling."
Wait you think the polling for something they would give the media?
Did you even read the link? No you did not. Let me spell it out for the person desperate to find conspiracy - they used the polls results to decide how much to spend on media buys. And since you've demonstrated a remarkable ability to suck at understanding jargon a "media buy" is advertising. And no its not some covert subliminal advertising. Its normal commercials.
> I really do try to admit when I think I'm wrong.
Apparently not. But you sure like to think of yourself like that don't you.
All those fucks, totally deserved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @05:13PM
Did you even read the link? No you did not. Let me spell it out for the person desperate to find conspiracy - they used the polls results to decide how much to spend on media buys.
Your link does say that.
First of all, Matzzie doesn't appear to be talking about public polling — nor does it make sense that he would be, since public polls from media outlets are developed by pollsters who work for or with those outlets. Matzzie's talking about polling that's done by campaigns and political action committees to inform media buys. In other words, before campaigns spend $200,000 on a flight of TV spots, they'll poll on the messages in those ads and figure out what to say to whom and then target that ad to those people as best they can.
Your link does not back that up with any sources. There is no reason to assume it is correct unless you start with the assumption that these couldn't be actual media polls because that would be a conspiracy. Since this is your main point of disagreement, the logic is circular. Google will give you plenty of pre-Podesta-leak results for "media poll" referring to polls run by media institutions. Why do you and The Washington Post assume that it means something else in this context? Could it be confirmation bias?