6 ms·

Given the margin of Trump's victory was so small, and he lost the overall popular vote, I would be surprised that anyone can be confident of a victory looking a

by dmode 9y ago

Given the margin of Trump's victory was so small, and he lost the overall popular vote, I would be surprised that anyone can be confident of a victory looking at any data set.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
corpMaverick 9y ago
If every one was betting on Clinton 10 to 1. But you know it closer to 2 to 1. That is a good bet.
- wpasc 9y ago
  Odds like that are meaningless (imo) for singular events. It's a good bet in repeatable scenarios, far less so in elections.
  - eloff 9y ago
    When you take a bet, you play the odds. You evaluate your expected return should you take many such bets, and if it's positive and you can afford to lose, the smart money is in taking the bet. In fact this is true of most anything you do in life - when you drove to work this morning you played the odds and the wager was your life against your salary. I'm sure you didn't think about it that way, but you took the bet
  - saalweachter 9y ago
    Both insurance companies and bookmakers are comfortable aggregating over many unique events.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  On election night, the odds were roughly 5 to 1 on PredictIt
  - Tempest1981 9y ago
    On Huffington Post, the odds were 98% Clinton, iirc. I suspect this led some people to not vote. Here it is: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinton-winning_us_581d0399e4b0e80b02ca2498 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinto...
    - corpMaverick 9y ago
      In 538 the odds were 70% for Clinton. I think the result was spot on.
- sjwright 9y ago
  There's no logical conflict between saying Clinton had a 10 to 1 chance of winning and Trump actually winning. 10 to 1 still means Trump wins 10% of the time.
  - corpMaverick 9y ago
    I don't know why you were down voted. It should be obvious, but people still interpret odds like that as it was a sure thing.
    - sjwright 9y ago
      Part of the problem is a confusion between raw poll results—where 59-41 means almost certain victory to one side—and statistical likelihood. On election night, Fivethirtyeight gave Trump a 29 percent chance of winning the electoral college. Not a 71-29 poll result, a nearly three-in-ten chance of winning. Let that sink in for a second, and reevaluate the media narrative that the pollsters got it wrong.
ur_all_autistic 9y ago
The margin was designed to be small. CA was trying not to be noticed. They wanted it to look like an upset so it would be more plausible.
the_trapper 9y ago
Fun fact, Trump carried more states in 2016 (30) than Obama carried in 2008 (28). Our country is so polarized that pretty much all elections are close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- dfee 9y ago
  Polarization and margin of victory are orthogonal concepts, and certainly not linked by causation.
- elgenie 9y ago
  States aren't a particularly meaningful counting unit: California encompasses more than 68 Wyomings by population. And the meaning of "carrying" a state by a 44.1% to 44.0% plurality is questionable. The current division in the US is urban vs rural, with turnout differences and suburbs deciding elections.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Number of states is indeed misleading. If each party gets half the states, it's a Democrat victory. E.g. Carter carries 24 states and Ford carries 27; Carter wins 297-240.
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      I'm really confused by the downvotes. This is the material evidence of > The current division in the US is urban vs rural I.e. you have to look at populations of states, not just state counts themselves.
      - brianzelip 9y ago
        Maybe you got down voted because 24 + 27 != 50?
mhue 9y ago
Imagine you train an algorithm to influence the voters to win the election. What would be the objective ? Maximize the probability that your candidate wins. This does not imply winning the popular vote, nor maximizing the margin of the electoral vote.

by dmode 9y ago

Given the margin of Trump's victory was so small, and he lost the overall popular vote, I would be surprised that anyone can be confident of a victory looking at any data set.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

corpMaverick 9y ago

If every one was betting on Clinton 10 to 1. But you know it closer to 2 to 1. That is a good bet.

wpasc 9y ago
Odds like that are meaningless (imo) for singular events. It's a good bet in repeatable scenarios, far less so in elections.
- eloff 9y ago
  When you take a bet, you play the odds. You evaluate your expected return should you take many such bets, and if it's positive and you can afford to lose, the smart money is in taking the bet. In fact this is true of most anything you do in life - when you drove to work this morning you played the odds and the wager was your life against your salary. I'm sure you didn't think about it that way, but you took the bet
- saalweachter 9y ago
  Both insurance companies and bookmakers are comfortable aggregating over many unique events.
creaghpatr 9y ago
On election night, the odds were roughly 5 to 1 on PredictIt
- Tempest1981 9y ago
  On Huffington Post, the odds were 98% Clinton, iirc. I suspect this led some people to not vote. Here it is: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinton-winning_us_581d0399e4b0e80b02ca2498 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinto...
  - corpMaverick 9y ago
    In 538 the odds were 70% for Clinton. I think the result was spot on.
sjwright 9y ago
There's no logical conflict between saying Clinton had a 10 to 1 chance of winning and Trump actually winning. 10 to 1 still means Trump wins 10% of the time.
- corpMaverick 9y ago
  I don't know why you were down voted. It should be obvious, but people still interpret odds like that as it was a sure thing.
  - sjwright 9y ago
    Part of the problem is a confusion between raw poll results—where 59-41 means almost certain victory to one side—and statistical likelihood. On election night, Fivethirtyeight gave Trump a 29 percent chance of winning the electoral college. Not a 71-29 poll result, a nearly three-in-ten chance of winning. Let that sink in for a second, and reevaluate the media narrative that the pollsters got it wrong.

ur_all_autistic 9y ago

The margin was designed to be small. CA was trying not to be noticed. They wanted it to look like an upset so it would be more plausible.

the_trapper 9y ago

Fun fact, Trump carried more states in 2016 (30) than Obama carried in 2008 (28). Our country is so polarized that pretty much all elections are close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

dfee 9y ago
Polarization and margin of victory are orthogonal concepts, and certainly not linked by causation.
elgenie 9y ago
States aren't a particularly meaningful counting unit: California encompasses more than 68 Wyomings by population. And the meaning of "carrying" a state by a 44.1% to 44.0% plurality is questionable. The current division in the US is urban vs rural, with turnout differences and suburbs deciding elections.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Number of states is indeed misleading. If each party gets half the states, it's a Democrat victory. E.g. Carter carries 24 states and Ford carries 27; Carter wins 297-240.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    I'm really confused by the downvotes. This is the material evidence of > The current division in the US is urban vs rural I.e. you have to look at populations of states, not just state counts themselves.
    - brianzelip 9y ago
      Maybe you got down voted because 24 + 27 != 50?

mhue 9y ago

Imagine you train an algorithm to influence the voters to win the election. What would be the objective ? Maximize the probability that your candidate wins. This does not imply winning the popular vote, nor maximizing the margin of the electoral vote.