5 ms·
The first problem with the model is it grossly missed the last election. I still think it’s good reading.
by mathattack 6y ago
The first problem with the model is it grossly missed the last election. I still think it’s good reading.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoAre you referring to the 2016 election? If so, you are wrong. 538 gave Trump a higher chance of winning than pretty much every independent pollster.
- Ibethewalrus 6y agonope, you're wrong. 538 gave Hillary a 71.4% chance of winning https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
- wtallis 6y agoThe assertion you're responding to was not about Trump's odds in an absolute sense, but relative to other pollsters and forecasters. So pointing out the precise value FiveThirtyEight assigned to that outcome doesn't refute anything until you compare it to somebody else's number.
- patrickthebold 6y agoThe GP is saying 538 did better compared to other news outlets. You need to also provide a source for another news outlet giving Hillary less than 71.4% if you want to show that the GP is wrong.
- Ibethewalrus 6y agothanks. gave a reread to the comment I replied to and makes sense
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- disown 6y agoSo they were "very very" wrong rather than "very very very" wrong like other pollsters? I think you proved the OP right rather than wrong.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoOnly because people don't understand probability and statistics. 538 gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning. The fact the people seem to think anything less than 50 equals 0 is a problem with people's understanding of statistics, not the statistic itself.