3 ms·
fivethirtyeight.com, weren't these the folks that predicted Hillary winning in a landslide? I'll read this article with a grain of salt. edit: Not sure why thi
by reeboo 9y ago
fivethirtyeight.com, weren't these the folks that predicted Hillary winning in a landslide? I'll read this article with a grain of salt.
edit: Not sure why this is being downvoted. I'm just pointing out that the title is misleading and maybe should be changed to "Way More Americans May Be Atheists Than We Thought, Or Not". I think "An Analysis of Atheists in America" would be a more appropriate title.
- flukus 9y agoNope, they were the ones getting flack for giving trump an absurdly high (30%) chance of winning.
- grzm 9y agoI recommend taking some time to read what they publish rather than what you may have heard they publish. 538 consistently pushes for proper interpretation of stats and predictions—particularly uncertainty percentages, which is often not the case in other publications, even those that reproduce stats sourced from 538. In particular, the primary numbers 538 published for the 2016 election were chances of winning, which can easily be misinterpreted as percentage of the vote. As of Nov 8, they had Clinton having a 71% chance of winning (with Trump at 27%), with 302 electoral votes, and 48.5% of the popular vote. This isn't a landslide prediction, and the 71% chance of winning is much lower than what was reported in many other publications. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ In the submitted article, they're quite careful in their language in support of the title, which purposefully includes the operative word "may". This is in keeping with what I've come to expect from 538.