Nate's method makes sense to me (Ph.D., Economics, also taught Stats). Wang's is more like technical analysis and astrology. If Clinton wins, we can't really di

Nate's method makes sense to me (Ph.D., Economics, also taught Stats). Wang's is more like technical analysis and astrology. If Clinton wins, we can't really distinguish between the two. If she loses, the model that put 2:1 or 3:1 against that is the better one. As Nate says: > "At the same time, it shouldn’t be hard to see how Clinton could lose. She’s up by about 3 percentage points nationally, and 3-point polling errors happen fairly often, including in the last two federal elections. Obama beat his polls by about 3 points in 2012, whereas Republicans beat their polls by 3 to 4 points in the 2014 midterms. If such an error were to favor Clinton, she could win in a borderline landslide. If the error favored Trump, however, she’d be in a dicey position, because the error is highly correlated across states." See http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ignore-the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ign...