3 ms·
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
by 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 agothe 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...