>The basic premise of the unskewers is wrong. Most pollsters don’t weight their results by party self-identification, which polls get by asking a question like “generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a….” Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic. There isn’t some national number from the government that tells us how many Democrats and Republicans there are in the country. Some states collect party registration data, but many states do not. Moreover, party registration is not the same thing as party identification. In a state like Kentucky, for example, there are a lot more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but more voters identified as Republican in the 2014 election exit polls.
he literally said "Trump has no chance of getting the nomination" for an entire year
Ryder Thompson
Prepare to get shot if Hillary rigs the election, because Trump has 67% to her 19% and hes completely unelectable.
Mason Green
>Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic absolutely delusional
Cameron Wood
...
Lucas Scott
>commentary on the state of a race in November is the same as a linear regression model based on a glut of data
If you actually went back and saw how he called almost every single primary state about a week before voting you'd stop repeating this meme. It's just burying you just like you buried yourselves in 2012.
Nicholas Brooks
>538 Damage control.
Elijah Myers
>538
Josiah Lewis
>If you predict the wrong nominee you were right
Is that you Trudeau?
Tyler Sanders
>Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic. IT'S NOT YOURS IT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU
William Cooper
So they're oversampling Democrat areas and claiming they dindu nuffin
James Morales
>damage control Little early for projecting, isn't it NacSoc?
Angel Gonzalez
>I'm illiterate Get your mother to help you read the article, underage b&
Eli Lewis
Would be an argument if that's what he did. Once again you're conflating commentary with the stats in his primary analysis, to your own detriment
Nate Hydrogen literally defending the intentional skewing of polls. Nice!
Blake Anderson
Very good user! You've posted the very website Enten completely dismantles in the linked article! Now go back to eating glue.
Brandon Cooper
>commentary with stats
you base your predictions and commentary on your interpretations of the statistics, moron
you have so far failed to #CorrectTheRecord
Luke Johnson
Look, the polls were wrong about Romney in 2012 and they're wrong about Trump now.
Noah Evans
...
Leo Garcia
Article actually states the opposite of what the OP implies. Really makes you think.
Jordan Adams
That's right! And there's about 20 times as much polling data now as there was from the period of September to December last year when Silver, not Enten (the author) was saying Trump didn't have a chance. Would you like to present a valid argument or just post some more memes?
Jayden Gutierrez
> didn't read, can't read, won't read
Ayden Peterson
Trump is anyway friend with the clintons, so he's just trolling the repunlicans.
Imagine the chaos if Hillary has to resign.
Henry Lewis
538 hasn't gotten much about this election cycle right so far.
Daniel Myers
You're fucking retarded.
Dominic Murphy
>Nate Silver underestimates how retarded and out of touch republicans are >Republicans: "We sure showed him, didn't we? Nate Bronnnnnzzzzzeeee."
