We are a Nation that bases its decision making on analytics. The problem with slam bam thank you mam data used to form our analytics is that it is easy to understand percentages without understanding the emotions that leads to the percentages. Traditional Science on the other hand, requires in-depth questioning and is slow and ponderous to obtain and slow to develop results from. As all major campaigns the Hillary Clinton for President campaign used both techniques. And then, three weeks before the election, there was only one. The Hillary Clinton Campaign eliminated the Traditional Science method explaining its results were too similar to analytics.
And we know what happened. I’m not saying if she kept both methods she would be President, but three weeks out! Blame Comey, and Jill Stein, and Bernie – a mirror will suffice.
“Democratic pollster Mark Mellman — who polled for then-Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign — said that while Greenberg’s article focused on Clinton’s 2016 campaign, some of the themes transcend last year’s presidential race.
“It is the typical pointing of fingers on one hand, but there is an underlying issue that lies behind it,” said Mellman. “There has been an ongoing debate. … And that debate has been occasioned by some analytics firms that have advertised them as better than traditional pollsters without empirical evidence.”
While pollsters largely fault Clinton’s campaign for prioritizing analytics over polling for much of the race, most acutely at the end, many campaign staffers largely view the battle between pollsters and analytics as a settled issue.
“This is a generational battle that I thought was over,” said a Clinton campaign official who requested anonymity to discuss the campaign’s data operation. “[Obama’s campaigns] made spending decisions based on analytics surveys, too.”
In the public statements campaign staffers have made — and in Clinton’s own book — most of the blame is placed on exogenous factors, rather than the data or its polling decisions.”