4 ms·
Every pollster/pundit quit your job now. Edit: I know, not EVERY one of them.
by smegel 10y ago
Every pollster/pundit quit your job now.
Edit: I know, not EVERY one of them.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pfortuny 10y agoWhere are the Nate Silver fans right now?
- y_u_no_rust 10y agoSilver is and always was a total cuck
- andars 10y agoHello. Pretty disappointed.
- ori_b 10y agoStill here. Nate Silver's models were some of the most generous towards Trump's chances of winning out there.
- adt2bt 10y agoHonestly, I'm still a fan. He, unlike most other models, gave Trump a healthy shot and cautioned repeatedly that a large polling miss was possible this year. That's pretty much what happened.
- nl 10y agoI'm here. I think he came out of this with his reputation enhanced: he gave Trump a 28% chance of winning the morning of the election which was vastly more than any other model. I think about polling and forecasting a lot, and I've concluded that the presentation of forecasts is a big problem. People often seem to conflate "30% chance" with "30% of the vote" which is clearly wrong - or something like this anyway. Silver went though the last month going "25% is a big chance!!" and no one really listened. I'm not sure what a better way to express it is though.
- nilkn 10y agoTo be fair, he was consistently significantly less favorable towards Clinton than any of the other high profile models. He even took quite a bit of flak for this in the weekend leading up to the election, but he stood his ground. While he was ultimately wrong, he was closer than mostly anyone else running a serious model.
- douche 10y agoHe really did not have a handle on this election cycle at all.
- fweespeech 10y agoLol. A 1 in 4 chance of something is not lottery odds. Still a fan, sorry.
- adevine 10y agoI would hope people on this board would understand statistics. Silver gave Trump about a 1/3 chance of winning, and he said the outcomes could run from a Clinton blowout to a narrow Trump victory, which is what happened. If people were interpreting his "33%" as "0%", despite all his warnings and explanations about what was possible, that's their problem, not Silver's.
- inimino 10y agoHe put Trump's chances at near 30% leading up to the election. How can you ask for better than that? I don't think you can argue that an upset like this would be expected to happen more than thirty percent of the time. Nate Silver's calls for caution are looking like some of the most reasonable pre-election commentary at this point.
- unimpressive 10y agoYou know, sometimes, a 30% chance actually happens. That is not a small number. With that in mind, I do think this is going to necessitate another look at how much we trust and do polling.
- Natsu 10y agoJust to be fair, Nate Silver predicted both this and the Cubs back on May 10th in a joke: "Reminder: Cubs will win the World Series and, in exchange, President Trump will be elected 8 days later." https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/730251094614528000 https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/730251094614528000
- Klockan 10y agoWho would have thought that people are reluctant to express controversial opinions in a live phone interview?
- dudul 10y agoA lot of polls predicted this outcome. They were just not taken seriously or given visibility in the media.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoThe thing is, the actions of those pundits worked in Trump's favour. Clinton was seen as a political insider, any one-sided story could be seen by Trump supporters as the establishment trying to protect one of their own. I lost count of the number of YouTube videos with one-sided Trump bashing leaving people in the comments saying it made them more likely to vote for Trump.