> For 538, this just meant publishing numbers that were way too confident. This isn't the case for the 2016 elections. 538 ended up having a much more robust f

> For 538, this just meant publishing numbers that were way too confident. This isn't the case for the 2016 elections. 538 ended up having a much more robust forecast because they accounted for systematic polling error (bias). https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gav...