3 ms·
Right now 100% of the comments in here are about "predicting" the election, when the word "predict" isn't even used in the article. Probably an over-eager edito
by rm999 10y ago
Right now 100% of the comments in here are about "predicting" the election, when the word "predict" isn't even used in the article. Probably an over-eager editor who changed the title.
The article itself is about a very interesting network analysis of establishment vs non-establishment behavior. I'd like to see more discussion about the content of the article.
edit: downvoted within 1 minute for trying to spur interesting discussion past the crappy headline :(
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- thecity2 10y ago“Our analysis was showing something, but our beliefs were different,” says Vishal Mishra, CEO of Right Relevance, which sells a research platform focused on influence. “We thought, how is Trump going to win? But our analysis kept showing us.” He doesn't say "predict". But it is very clearly implied.
- opaqe 10y agoI noticed the establishment v. non-est. behavior as well. How much of this network property is really a predictive signal more than an explanation for "shock" at the results? What are the conditions for it being one or the other?