4 ms·

Trump did not have a 28.6% chance of winning at all. The number was simply false because the underlying polls were fundamentally skewed in multiple states.

by 0xy 6y ago

Retric 6y ago
Nobody trusts polls as completely accurate, predictions are always fudged to take into account such things. Now, Trump had a very healthy margin in the electoral college which might make it seem like an easy prediction, but he only hit 46.1% of the popular vote. Hillary on the other hand only hit 48.2% which shows 5.7% of the population was willing to go 3rd party for whatever reason. In the end it’s never a single issue, Hillary supporters stayed home on Election Day in part because she was predicated to win. That’s the kind of issue that makes predictions so difficult. It’s rarely a question of undecided voters, but rather who is willing to show up to vote. Something as simple as a little rain can swing elections.
- 0xy 6y ago
  That's not supported by the data. Hillary was significantly less popular among black voters than Obama. In fact, if black voters had an identical turnout in 2016 than in 2012 Trump would've lost. It's easy to see why given her history, too. She has a history of pretty racist remarks and her husband spearheaded the infamously racist Crime Bill.
  - Retric 6y ago
    What’s not supported? Those are the actual results of the election. Also, 2012 and 2008 elections both had under 2% voting 3rd party which is more normal.
syspec 6y ago
But he did. Specifically according to Nate silver on Election Day in 2016.
- 0xy 6y ago
  The state polls were wrong by large margins, therefore Nate Silver's prediction was built upon a mountain of false information. Some of the polls were wrong by margins larger than the purported margin of error, implying the entire poll was structured incorrectly. Those same polls have not re-adjusted since 2016.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    This seems to be a misunderstanding of polling, of models built on polling, and maybe on statistics in general. There was some polling error in 2016, it's true, in several states that turned out to be determinative. Uncertainty can be and is built into models based on the quality and frequency of state polls, and 538's model certainly takes the polling errors of 2016 into account by adding more uncertainty to states and pollsters which got 2016 wrong. That said, most of the shifts in state results were within the margin of polling error, which is why Silver's model gave Trump a much higher chance of winning than any other major models did.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    > Those same polls have not re-adjusted since 2016 This is incorrect. Almost everything you've said here has been incorrect. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-pollsters-have-changed-since-2016-and-what-still-worries-them-about-2020/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-pollsters-have-cha...

Trump did not have a 28.6% chance of winning at all. The number was simply false because the underlying polls were fundamentally skewed in multiple states.

by 0xy 6y ago

Trump did not have a 28.6% chance of winning at all. The number was simply false because the underlying polls were fundamentally skewed in multiple states.

Retric 6y ago

Nobody trusts polls as completely accurate, predictions are always fudged to take into account such things. Now, Trump had a very healthy margin in the electoral college which might make it seem like an easy prediction, but he only hit 46.1% of the popular vote. Hillary on the other hand only hit 48.2% which shows 5.7% of the population was willing to go 3rd party for whatever reason. In the end it’s never a single issue, Hillary supporters stayed home on Election Day in part because she was predicated to win. That’s the kind of issue that makes predictions so difficult. It’s rarely a question of undecided voters, but rather who is willing to show up to vote. Something as simple as a little rain can swing elections.

0xy 6y ago
That's not supported by the data. Hillary was significantly less popular among black voters than Obama. In fact, if black voters had an identical turnout in 2016 than in 2012 Trump would've lost. It's easy to see why given her history, too. She has a history of pretty racist remarks and her husband spearheaded the infamously racist Crime Bill.
- Retric 6y ago
  What’s not supported? Those are the actual results of the election. Also, 2012 and 2008 elections both had under 2% voting 3rd party which is more normal.

syspec 6y ago

But he did. Specifically according to Nate silver on Election Day in 2016.

0xy 6y ago
The state polls were wrong by large margins, therefore Nate Silver's prediction was built upon a mountain of false information. Some of the polls were wrong by margins larger than the purported margin of error, implying the entire poll was structured incorrectly. Those same polls have not re-adjusted since 2016.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  This seems to be a misunderstanding of polling, of models built on polling, and maybe on statistics in general. There was some polling error in 2016, it's true, in several states that turned out to be determinative. Uncertainty can be and is built into models based on the quality and frequency of state polls, and 538's model certainly takes the polling errors of 2016 into account by adding more uncertainty to states and pollsters which got 2016 wrong. That said, most of the shifts in state results were within the margin of polling error, which is why Silver's model gave Trump a much higher chance of winning than any other major models did.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  > Those same polls have not re-adjusted since 2016 This is incorrect. Almost everything you've said here has been incorrect. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-pollsters-have-changed-since-2016-and-what-still-worries-them-about-2020/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-pollsters-have-cha...