3 ms·
You're in a bubble. No worries, we all are, I think New York Times had that "Clinton win probability" meter at >90% for many many months. It slipped to >80% or
by revelation 10y ago
You're in a bubble. No worries, we all are, I think New York Times had that "Clinton win probability" meter at >90% for many many months. It slipped to >80% or so on election day.
I've come to realize that all their statistics foo is just peddled propaganda in opaque packaging. Utterly worthless.
- thefalcon 10y agoYeah, I had a lot of faith in that opaque package (more specifically 538's than the NYT, and at least he was "only" giving Clinton a 73% chance) and I'm left wondering why. Even if Nate's model was right and we just landed in the 27% side of things... what good would faith in the model do me in the end?