3 ms·

> I don't understand how thick headed the mainstream media (MSM) seems to be in not getting it. This "upset" win of Trump (upset in the sense that it didn't pla

by dcposch 10y ago

> I don't understand how thick headed the mainstream media (MSM) seems to be in not getting it. This "upset" win of Trump (upset in the sense that it didn't play by the MSM's wishes) was not an isolated incident - it's happened in India (2014), it happened in UK (Brexit), and it has been repeated in the US. Hubris. Hubris, to a hilarious degree. Here's a story published 72 hours ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/election-day-things-look-good-for-democrats_us_5821cb07e4b0d9ce6fbe91e4 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/election-day-things-look... The first sentence says Hillary has a "98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency". It only gets better from there.

caseysoftware 10y ago
I bet against Hillary starting in May. I was nervous in October when the "grab them" audio came out but I stuck with it. Buffet's rule of going opposite the analysis that everyone knows can work out well. Turn out you can make a lot of money betting $5 per electoral vote..
yk 10y ago
> The first sentence says Hillary has a "98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency". It only gets better from there. That is why physicists demand 99.99% (three sigma) significance before they are calling it hints. The thing is, it is absolutely true that (some) polling models predicted a 98% chance of an Hillary win. It is just the problem that these models have trouble to predict the behavior of Trump voters. And frankly that is the problem with models. I have predicted, on reddit, that Trump would win. And I managed to do that precisely by not having a model, I just looked at the model outputs of Real Clear Politics and added a fudge factor, because usually models underestimate right wing populists, for perfectly understandable reasons. However, having a model means that you can not just add in a fudge factor, honesty demands that you have to justify each and every parameter and actually all forecasts where I did bother to look, did that. But the thing is at rather uncertain predictions like 98% the fudge factors reign.

by dcposch 10y ago

caseysoftware 10y ago

I bet against Hillary starting in May. I was nervous in October when the "grab them" audio came out but I stuck with it. Buffet's rule of going opposite the analysis that everyone knows can work out well. Turn out you can make a lot of money betting $5 per electoral vote..

yk 10y ago

> The first sentence says Hillary has a "98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency". It only gets better from there. That is why physicists demand 99.99% (three sigma) significance before they are calling it hints. The thing is, it is absolutely true that (some) polling models predicted a 98% chance of an Hillary win. It is just the problem that these models have trouble to predict the behavior of Trump voters. And frankly that is the problem with models. I have predicted, on reddit, that Trump would win. And I managed to do that precisely by not having a model, I just looked at the model outputs of Real Clear Politics and added a fudge factor, because usually models underestimate right wing populists, for perfectly understandable reasons. However, having a model means that you can not just add in a fudge factor, honesty demands that you have to justify each and every parameter and actually all forecasts where I did bother to look, did that. But the thing is at rather uncertain predictions like 98% the fudge factors reign.