Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow Analytical Models Failed Clinton
It was well known that traditional polling was having problems. The numbing effect of billions of telemarketing calls and the advent of caller ID and voice mail had reduced response rates (the percentage of completed interviews for every hundred attempts) from the 40s a couple of decades ago to the high single digits. As they struggled to get truly representative samples, pollsters weighted their data more than ever before, making assumptions of what the electorate would look like on election days that were weeks, months, or even a year or more away.
...snip...
The reliance, or perhaps overreliance on analytics, may be one of the factors contributing to Clintons surprise defeat. The Clinton team was so confident in its analytical models that it opted not to conduct tracking polls in a number of states during the last month of the campaign. As a consequence, deteriorating support in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin fell below the radar screen, slippage that that traditional tracking polls would have certainly caught.
According to Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign did not go on the air with television ads in Wisconsin until the weeks of Oct. 25 and Nov. 1, spending in the end just $2.6 million. Super PACs backing Clinton didnt air ads in Wisconsin until the last week of the campaign. In Michigan, aside from a tiny $16,000 buy by the campaign and a party committee the week of Oct. 25, the Clinton campaign and its allied groups didnt conduct a concerted advertising effort until a week before the election.
In fact, the Clinton campaign spent more money on television advertising in Arizona, Georgia, and the Omaha, Nebraska markets than in Michigan and Wisconsin combined. It was Michigan and Wisconsin, along with Pennsylvania (the Clinton campaign and allied groups did spend $42 million on television in the Keystone State), that effectively cost Democrats the presidency.
http://cookpolitical.com/story/10205
...snip...
The reliance, or perhaps overreliance on analytics, may be one of the factors contributing to Clintons surprise defeat. The Clinton team was so confident in its analytical models that it opted not to conduct tracking polls in a number of states during the last month of the campaign. As a consequence, deteriorating support in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin fell below the radar screen, slippage that that traditional tracking polls would have certainly caught.
According to Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign did not go on the air with television ads in Wisconsin until the weeks of Oct. 25 and Nov. 1, spending in the end just $2.6 million. Super PACs backing Clinton didnt air ads in Wisconsin until the last week of the campaign. In Michigan, aside from a tiny $16,000 buy by the campaign and a party committee the week of Oct. 25, the Clinton campaign and its allied groups didnt conduct a concerted advertising effort until a week before the election.
In fact, the Clinton campaign spent more money on television advertising in Arizona, Georgia, and the Omaha, Nebraska markets than in Michigan and Wisconsin combined. It was Michigan and Wisconsin, along with Pennsylvania (the Clinton campaign and allied groups did spend $42 million on television in the Keystone State), that effectively cost Democrats the presidency.
http://cookpolitical.com/story/10205
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
9 replies, 3790 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Analytical Models Failed Clinton (Original Post)
FBaggins
Dec 2016
OP
+1, what Comey did should be prosecuted seeing that it now opens up all agency heads that investigat
uponit7771
Dec 2016
#3
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)1. Why on earth would the Clinton campaign worry?
And don't forget - we definitely had North Carolina and Florida, too!
No worries!
Just astounding, lingering shock.
It was the individual state polling that badly missed the mark. In Wisconsin, Clinton led in each of the 32 public polls from mid-August on. The final Marquette University Law School, generally considered to be the most respected in the state, had the Democrat up by 6 points. She lost by eight-tenths of a point.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton led in 37 out of 38 polls beginning in early August. CNNs last poll had Clinton up by 4 points, the final Quinnipiac poll had her up by 5 points, and the RealClearPolitics average had her up by 1.9 percentage points. She lost by eight-tenths of a point.
In Michigan, Clinton was ahead in 25 out of 26 polls taken from the beginning of August on. The Detroit Free Presss last poll had her up by four points, and the RealClearPolitics average had her up by 3.6 points. She lost by two-tenths of a point.
andym
(5,672 posts)2. These polls were probably pretty close-- it wasn't analytics-- it was bad news
1 part Wikileaks and 9 parts Comey that came at the worst possible time. The two Comey stories coming so close to the election, just reinforced all the negative painting that Hillary Clinton had been hit with over the last 3 years. The FBI especially is still relatively trusted and that was the end of the campaign of a talented but vulnerable candidate.
uponit7771
(91,670 posts)3. +1, what Comey did should be prosecuted seeing that it now opens up all agency heads that investigat
... to announce investigations days before elections to affect elections if he's not.
It would do the nation no good to have Comey sit pretty for what he did, no good at all
oasis
(51,649 posts)4. Comey's a disgrace and should pay a high political price. nt
LisaL
(46,591 posts)8. Trump could give him a medal?
LisaL
(46,591 posts)7. Timing was perfect. For Trump.
It isn't called an October surprise for nothing.
yardwork
(64,109 posts)9. And "journalists" stating that Hillary was under indictment the week before the election.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)5. give it up; it was hacked. nt
LisaL
(46,591 posts)6. Analytical models didn't expect Comey to send his letters.