3 ms·

Everyone claiming that polls or forecasters were wrong should really do their homework and think what 'forecasting' is all about. It is not about predicting fut

Everyone claiming that polls or forecasters were wrong should really do their homework and think what 'forecasting' is all about. It is not about predicting future with 100% certainty. It is about calculating odds of outcomes. You can calculate odds of Trump winning and put them at 40%, you can put them at 1% or 90%. In neither of cases you are wrong or right when he wins. Odds of winning are not 'verified' in any way. If you say that there is 50% chance of coin flipping on tails you are not wrong when it flips on head.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gph 10y ago
Perhaps, but I still think the fact that so many polls had Clinton's chances of winning well above 90% is indicative of some incorrect assumptions within their models. Especially considering how they were off in nearly every single swing state. Most forecasters had Clinton winning Wisc/Michigan at over 90%, and considerable advantages in most the other battleground states. It would be like if I gave you a quarter and said it has a 75% chance of it coming up heads (ignore physics), then you flip it five times and it comes up tails each time. Sure it could be a run of coincidence, but I'd also put serious consideration into my statistical model.
- basch 10y ago
  the polls were not expecting a globalist establishment incumbent vs a nationalist populist outsider. the polls treated him like GOP candidate, when he was more of a parasite to the party, using its skin to get on every ballet as a "top two" candidate. at least Nate Silver's part two to this piece will include "i was less confident than most others" https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pund... Silver really took Trump's ascension to the GOP throne as a lesson. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington-post-polls-twitter-230815 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gph 10y ago

Perhaps, but I still think the fact that so many polls had Clinton's chances of winning well above 90% is indicative of some incorrect assumptions within their models. Especially considering how they were off in nearly every single swing state. Most forecasters had Clinton winning Wisc/Michigan at over 90%, and considerable advantages in most the other battleground states. It would be like if I gave you a quarter and said it has a 75% chance of it coming up heads (ignore physics), then you flip it five times and it comes up tails each time. Sure it could be a run of coincidence, but I'd also put serious consideration into my statistical model.

basch 10y ago
the polls were not expecting a globalist establishment incumbent vs a nationalist populist outsider. the polls treated him like GOP candidate, when he was more of a parasite to the party, using its skin to get on every ballet as a "top two" candidate. at least Nate Silver's part two to this piece will include "i was less confident than most others" https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pund... Silver really took Trump's ascension to the GOP throne as a lesson. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington-post-polls-twitter-230815 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington...