4 ms·

> It wasn't a blow out - if I recall, they gave a >30% chance for Trump to win. It seems perfectly ordinary for Trump to have won, then - "mild surprise" at mos

> It wasn't a blow out - if I recall, they gave a >30% chance for Trump to win. It seems perfectly ordinary for Trump to have won, then - "mild surprise" at most. Revisionist history. I was in San Francisco the months leading up to the election, employees at startups were refreshing 538 pretty much every minute waiting for their latest data visualizations to confirm their pre-existing beliefs that "the democrat's got this" To them, the literal worst case scenario was an electoral college TIE. Which of course would have also resulted in a Trump victory, but an electoral college BLOWOUT? And now you want to find satisfaction in defining the semantics of a blow out when it is obviously for emphasis and effect? seriously. It was hopium since the primaries, 538 lost their credibility.

lazzlazzlazz 8y ago
I was also in San Francisco and the delusion was incredible. I was posting almost weekly on Facebook that people were overstating Clinton's chances of winning, and that the pollsters giving it a <2% chance were way off the mark. I have the evidence to prove this, trivially. > I was in San Francisco the months leading up to the election, employees at startups were refreshing 538 pretty much every minute waiting for their latest data visualizations to confirm their pre-existing beliefs that "the democrat's got this" True, and consistent with what I've said. > To them, the literal worst case scenario was an electoral college TIE. I don't care what San Francisco startup employees expected. > And now you want to find satisfaction in defining the semantics of a blow out when it is obviously for emphasis and effect? Trump's victory wasn't exceptionally large in the history of the electoral college. You can verify this yourself. > 538 lost their credibility. They gave Trump reasonable odds to win. He did. I'm not sure what you're missing.
thousandautumns 8y ago
I'm unsure what you are talking about, but as the other person stated, 538 gave Trump a 30% chance to win. If your colleagues interpreted that as a surefire thing then that reflects on you all poorly, not 538.

lazzlazzlazz 8y ago

I was also in San Francisco and the delusion was incredible. I was posting almost weekly on Facebook that people were overstating Clinton's chances of winning, and that the pollsters giving it a <2% chance were way off the mark. I have the evidence to prove this, trivially. > I was in San Francisco the months leading up to the election, employees at startups were refreshing 538 pretty much every minute waiting for their latest data visualizations to confirm their pre-existing beliefs that "the democrat's got this" True, and consistent with what I've said. > To them, the literal worst case scenario was an electoral college TIE. I don't care what San Francisco startup employees expected. > And now you want to find satisfaction in defining the semantics of a blow out when it is obviously for emphasis and effect? Trump's victory wasn't exceptionally large in the history of the electoral college. You can verify this yourself. > 538 lost their credibility. They gave Trump reasonable odds to win. He did. I'm not sure what you're missing.

thousandautumns 8y ago

I'm unsure what you are talking about, but as the other person stated, 538 gave Trump a 30% chance to win. If your colleagues interpreted that as a surefire thing then that reflects on you all poorly, not 538.