3 ms·
On the other hand, this makes the whole operation unfalsifiable in any reasonable time frame. "I always said the candidate had a .1% chance of winning!" Given
by jerf 6y ago
On the other hand, this makes the whole operation unfalsifiable in any reasonable time frame. "I always said the candidate had a .1% chance of winning!"
Given two major elections in a row where the results were essentially out of the error bars, it is perfectly reasonable to be dropping your confidence on pollsters very hard. Once was perhaps understandable, but twice is getting into "right .01% of the time" territory.
- johnnyg 6y agoI hadn't considered the "unfalsifiable" aspect of my comment. I think you make a good point. At a poker table you get a high number of events to check against but a presidential election is only once every 4 years. I wonder how accurate the local elections are vs the national? If neither is accurate, then that's a strong case for your point of view and a change in methodology.
- cwkoss 6y ago> On the other hand, this makes the whole operation unfalsifiable in any reasonable time frame. "I always said the candidate had a .1% chance of winning!" I wonder how many people still think Nate Silver has a credible perspective: he's spun the above strategy into a job in unscientific punditry.