US election: how did the polls get it so wrong?
Well, folks, this should be the end of industrial political polling as we know it.
The result underscores how badly modern polls serve us. Polling is an enormous, lucrative and influential industry - Australia has lost sitting prime ministers over poll results. But the US election outcome shows how unreliable polls can be at predicting our political futures.
Many pollsters are now eating humble pie.
It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug. https://t.co/3eefhWzI3y— Sam Wang (@SamWangPhD) October 19, 2016
As the votes for Trump rolled in, Wang wrote that he's getting ready for "bug-cookery", saying that "the polls were off, massively".
In the late hours of voting day in the US, Wang wrote:
The entire polling industry - public, campaign-associated, aggregators - ended up with data that missed tonight's results by a very large margin. There is now the question of understanding how a mature industry could have gone so wrong. And of course, most of all, there is the shock of a likely Trump presidency. I apologize that I underestimated the possibility of such an event.
Nate Silver, who uses statistical analysis to crunch poll data on the website FiveThirtyEight and famously called the outcome of the 2012 election correctly, was less confident than Wang of a Clinton presidency. But FiveThirtyEight did tip Clinton as the likely winner: