3 ms·
Different pundits had different odds on that race. No matter which one you go with, what makes you think those odds weren’t true facts? Remember, n=1 in this s
by function_seven 9y ago
Different pundits had different odds on that race. No matter which one you go with, what makes you think those odds weren’t true facts?
Remember, n=1 in this scenario.
- haberman 9y agoYou can look at: 1. the specific circumstances of the outcome. Hillary Clinton didn't lose just barely, she lost by a lot. And she lost states like Wisconsin, which wasn't even supposed to be in play. 2. the fact that predictions like HuffPo's were far off from more credible pundits like 538. 3. the fact that HuffPo so aggressively mocked anyone who took a more measured view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-wrong-with-538_us_581ffe18e4b0334571e09e74 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-wrong-with-538_us_...
- function_seven 9y agoDrilling down to the state level is a good way to really trash those "predictions" from HuffPo. 538 really did get it right. They constantly noted the high correlation among related states, saying that if the polls are wrong in MI, they'd probably be wrong by the same amount in WI and PA. And that's exactly what happened.