5 ms·

All of the people complaining about how Five Thirty Eight is a fraud because they "predicted" that Hillary Clinton would win should read this. They gave Trump

All of the people complaining about how Five Thirty Eight is a fraud because they "predicted" that Hillary Clinton would win should read this. They gave Trump a significant chance of winning, more than almost any other poll aggregator did. In fact, before the election, Nate made a post outlining all the reasons that Trump could win and gave him a 36% chance of doing so. They literally said that trump would win based on polls like that 36% of the time, so it shouldn't have been that shocking that he did. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ignore-the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ig... You might say that a forecast that's so ambivalent isn't useful, but if someone told you that there's a 36% chance of rain, you'd plan your beach trip accordingly. I don't see why predicting a 36% chance of the underdog winning the presidential race is any less informative.

keymone 8y ago
can downvoters elaborate on why they disagree?
- ghaff 8y ago
  It's probably a confusing the map with the territory sort of thing. FiveThirtyEight predicted Clinton would probably win and didn't. Many people are (understandably) upset she didn't win and they're lashing out at FiveThirtyEight for having given them what turned out to be false hope.
  - pwinnski 8y ago
    As evidenced slightly in this thread already, my observation is that most of the critics actually wanted Trump to win and are gloating that he did.
  - erentz 8y ago
    It might also be something a bit different: There's a lot of people on the left who are angry with Clinton and the Democrat establishment for running a very technical/data-driven campaign that turned out to be very flawed and ran counter to common sense (even her husband was telling her to campaign in areas she was ignoring due to this "data"). The technically driven 538 sort of represents that attitude. Nate Silver has also started to stray into political punditry which is turning a lot of people off. People who liked him for his data are now having to hear where he stands on issues.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Mixing personas is always challenging. See also people who want to be both entertainers and journalists depending upon what suits them at a given moment. Of course, there's no reason someone can't be both a pundit and a data scientist but one casts suspicions of lack of objectivity (which, of course, never totally exists in real life) on the other.
    - ianai 8y ago
      For me, I’ll always monitor and follow his poll analysis. But something about how he handled 2016 soured my view of him. It’s like he didn’t just “predict.” He insisted on being correct in a way that was too overt. Further, let’s not forget all of the dirty deeds orchestrated through Facebook, online, and hacking. The election in three key states swung by tiny amounts. It’s not correct to blame what otherwise worked for the perfect storm. In fact, I don’t remember 538 sayin anything about fake news or election hacking prior to the election. It was all polls of polls.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
538 gave Trump and the Cavaliers similar odds in 2016, something I pointed out to a bunch of people after the Cav's won but before Trump did. Golden State were substantial favorites, yet the Cav's beat them. Nobody is blaming 538 for calling GSW the favorites, few people think their probabilities were wrong. Why is it so different for the presidential election?

keymone 8y ago

can downvoters elaborate on why they disagree?

ghaff 8y ago
It's probably a confusing the map with the territory sort of thing. FiveThirtyEight predicted Clinton would probably win and didn't. Many people are (understandably) upset she didn't win and they're lashing out at FiveThirtyEight for having given them what turned out to be false hope.
- pwinnski 8y ago
  As evidenced slightly in this thread already, my observation is that most of the critics actually wanted Trump to win and are gloating that he did.
- erentz 8y ago
  It might also be something a bit different: There's a lot of people on the left who are angry with Clinton and the Democrat establishment for running a very technical/data-driven campaign that turned out to be very flawed and ran counter to common sense (even her husband was telling her to campaign in areas she was ignoring due to this "data"). The technically driven 538 sort of represents that attitude. Nate Silver has also started to stray into political punditry which is turning a lot of people off. People who liked him for his data are now having to hear where he stands on issues.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Mixing personas is always challenging. See also people who want to be both entertainers and journalists depending upon what suits them at a given moment. Of course, there's no reason someone can't be both a pundit and a data scientist but one casts suspicions of lack of objectivity (which, of course, never totally exists in real life) on the other.
  - ianai 8y ago
    For me, I’ll always monitor and follow his poll analysis. But something about how he handled 2016 soured my view of him. It’s like he didn’t just “predict.” He insisted on being correct in a way that was too overt. Further, let’s not forget all of the dirty deeds orchestrated through Facebook, online, and hacking. The election in three key states swung by tiny amounts. It’s not correct to blame what otherwise worked for the perfect storm. In fact, I don’t remember 538 sayin anything about fake news or election hacking prior to the election. It was all polls of polls.

bryanlarsen 8y ago

538 gave Trump and the Cavaliers similar odds in 2016, something I pointed out to a bunch of people after the Cav's won but before Trump did. Golden State were substantial favorites, yet the Cav's beat them. Nobody is blaming 538 for calling GSW the favorites, few people think their probabilities were wrong. Why is it so different for the presidential election?