汇丰笔试松原(汇丰中国芯片研究) (今日更新中)

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The jury in the trial of former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is likely to end a second straight day of deliberations without a verdict.Jurors debating the 18 charges against Manafort asked Judge T.S. Ellis to end Friday's deliberations at 5 p.m. ET, an indication they may not be near a verdict.Their note to Ellis came shortly after the judge revealed he has received threats during the course of the proceedings and the President called the trial "very sad."Ellis did not disclose details about the threats. But he said it was enough to make him wary of making the 12 jurors and four alternates' names public, in response to a request from media organizations. 686

The Justice Department is investigating Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for possibly using his office for personal gain, following a referral from Interior's inspector general, two sources familiar with the investigation say.The full extent of the inquiry is unclear.Zinke has faced multiple ethics questions during his time at Interior, and the inspector general's office has multiple public inquiries into the secretary including the department's handling of a Connecticut casino project, whether the boundaries for Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument were redrawn to benefit a state lawmaker and conversations between Zinke and Halliburton Chairman David Lesar about a Montana land development project.Zinke said he has not been contacted by the Justice Department."They haven't talked to me. It will be the same thing as all the other investigations. I follow all rules, procedures, regulations and most importantly the law. This is another politically driven investigation that has no merit," Zinke told CNN.The Justice Department declined to comment. Interior's inspector general's office said it would not comment on Justice-related issues.President Donald Trump's Cabinet secretaries have faced scrutiny over their use of government resources, including former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.CNN has also learned Justice Department investigators began probing Scott Pruitt's questionable ethical conduct before he left as Environmental Protection Agency administrator, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. The inquiry was opened up after a referral from the EPA IG regarding whether Pruitt took any action to benefit an energy lobbyist he rented a condo from for below market rate.The probe appears to have stalled since Pruitt left office over the summer, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. 1922

The lawyer representing Stormy Daniels, the porn star suing President Donald Trump, claimed Friday that she has faced physical threats."My client was physically threatened to stay silent about what she knew about Donald Trump," Michael Avenatti told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." He said more details would be forthcoming in Daniels' upcoming interview on CBS's "60 Minutes," which is scheduled to air later this month."She's going to be able to provide very specific details about what happened here," Avenatti said. He would not answer whether or not it was someone close to the President who threatened her. 620

The Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest had a different look and smaller field on Saturday. Instead of being held outside in front of thousands of screaming spectators, it was conducted inside with a limited number of officials. The field was also much smaller as travel restrictions kept some competitive eaters away from the venue.But present were the two reigning champions who have dominated the contest in recent years, and they did not disappoint.Joey Chestnut won his 14th Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest in the last 15 years by consuming 75 hot dogs, marking a world record. The only competitor in the last 15 years to beat Chestnut, Matt Stonie, was among those unable to compete due to New York’s travel restrictions.Chestnut also became the first competitor to consume 1,000 hot dogs over the lifespan of the annual Fourth of July contest.Miki Sudo set a new women’s world record by consuming 48.5 hot dogs in 10 minutes on Saturday, surpassing Sonya Thomas’ marker of 45 hot dogs. Sudo, 34, won her seventh consecutive title on the women’s side. 1069

来源：资阳报