Sam Wang called a Trump win practically impossible: https://twitter.com/samwangphd/status/788544053059153924 https://twitter.com/samwangphd/status/788544053059

Sam Wang called a Trump win practically impossible: https://twitter.com/samwangphd/status/788544053059153924 https://twitter.com/samwangphd/status/788544053059153924 http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/11/05/poll-expert-i-will-eat-a-bug-if-trump-exceeds-240.cnn http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/11/05/poll-expert-i-wi... http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/10/some-secrets-are-not-all-that-dirty/ http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/10/some-secrets-are-no... Specifically the last link exhibits the smugness this article is talking about. Here's a quote from it: > This seems like a good time to reveal one of the Princeton Election Consortium’s own secrets. Thankfully, it does not involve an Access Hollywood video. Here it is: poll-based Presidential prediction is not very hard. I guess that is a pretty boring secret. Sorry. Sam Wang was predicting a 95% chance of winning for Hillary. I guess we're in the 5%. I'd further like to point out that Hillary is right now winning the popular vote by 0.1%, and the NYTimes has adjusted their prediction down to 0.5% when all the votes are tallied. Obama's win over Romney was slightly less than 4.0%, and he won 332-206 in the electoral college. Here's how Sam Wang describes it: > President Obama’s re-election in 2012 carried even less suspense: he never lost the lead to Romney. The closest he came was right after the first debate, though even then he was slightly ahead. The pressure to express a Trump sentiment is not high in a non-swing state; If you are in an entrenched blue state, people do not care about you(guaranteed democrat win anyway). If you are in an entrenched red state, then you have plenty of support around you. The voters in swing states are a much smaller percentage of the total, and preference falsification would have affected those states the most.