4 ms·

>Fivethirtyeight had Clinton at 88% less than a month out from election day: It is funny seeing this here because it is a great example of how it is hard to fi

by slg 5y ago

>Fivethirtyeight had Clinton at 88% less than a month out from election day: It is funny seeing this here because it is a great example of how it is hard to fight misinformation. What you said is technically correct but it is extremely misleading. There is no reason to use 538's projection a month out from the election when you could be using the one from the day of the election which had Clinton at 71%. You seem to have chosen the moment in which Clinton's odds were the highest to suggest the projection was wrong. Your comment is just as factual as if I said "538 was one of the few outlets that had Trump favored a few months before the election". That would also be technically true but it glosses over the fact that they only had Trump favored on a single day out of the several months they did projections. Is this "misinformation" meant to smear 538? Is this just run-of-the-mill bias? Is this an honest mistake? It this specific date chosen intentionally and your motive is just being misunderstood? There is no way for a third party to know the definitive answer to these questions, but if I was 538 I would certainly feel a little attacked by your comment and might jump to calling it misinformation.

lelandfe 5y ago
A parent commenter stated projections from reputable outlets were "significantly lower than 99%." Given the original claim of "polls predicted a 99% chance," focusing on a reputable source's highest prediction lends credence to the statement. That projection was made scant weeks out from the election, as well. It's not irrelevant (Oct. median was 85%), and calling my providing a link misinformation is pretty bizarre. I suspect this is not the first time you've felt obliged to stick up for 538 but you're purely wielding a strawman in this case. I've expressed no judgement. Anyway, we're talking about the general populace's sentiments around the predictions. Why would we possibly talk about the predictions made the day of the election – those numbers had done no work in shaping that sentiment.
- slg 5y ago
  >Given that comment train, wouldn't you focus on the moment they were at their highest? That projection was made scant weeks out from the election, as well. No, because that 88% was basically a prediction of a prediction because as other people pointed out that occurred before news that changed the makeup of the race. You can't blame them for not knowing the news ahead of time. It would be like if I predicted the Rams win the Superbowl this weekend, then we find out on Saturday that 10 players will miss the game due to Covid. I might then revise my prediction to the Bengals winning. If the Rams win wouldn't you say my prediction was wrong because of my final prediction? My initial prediction might have been right but that was made with less information and I revised that prediction once I got more information. Similarly it doesn't make sense to criticize 538 for being less accurate with their early projections when they had less information. As they got more information their predictions became more accurate. It should be obvious that they weren't changing their model in a vacuum to push the odds towards Trump. More information was coming out that improved Trump's odds and the model reflected that. And to be clear I didn't call your comment misinformation. I used it as an example of why it is hard to categorize misinformation. Some might view your comment as misinformation and some might not. The only value judgement I made was that it is "extremely misleading" and I stand by the categorization regardless of the motive behind your comment.
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    > Similarly it doesn't make sense to criticize 538 for being less accurate with their early projections when they had less information It must be a good feeling, then, that I have not criticized them. > to be clear I didn't call your comment misinformation Earlier: > Is this "misinformation" meant to smear 538?
    - slg 5y ago
      >It must be a good feeling, then, that I have not criticized them. You were trying to correct someone who was defending the accuracy of the general industry predictions. If you were not directly criticizing 538, the criticism was certainly implied. >> Is this "misinformation" meant to smear 538? Are you familiar with the concept of scare quotes? I specifically used quotes there to indicate that I was not directly calling your comment misinformation but was instead using that term with some detachment.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

by slg 5y ago

lelandfe 5y ago

A parent commenter stated projections from reputable outlets were "significantly lower than 99%." Given the original claim of "polls predicted a 99% chance," focusing on a reputable source's highest prediction lends credence to the statement. That projection was made scant weeks out from the election, as well. It's not irrelevant (Oct. median was 85%), and calling my providing a link misinformation is pretty bizarre. I suspect this is not the first time you've felt obliged to stick up for 538 but you're purely wielding a strawman in this case. I've expressed no judgement. Anyway, we're talking about the general populace's sentiments around the predictions. Why would we possibly talk about the predictions made the day of the election – those numbers had done no work in shaping that sentiment.

slg 5y ago
>Given that comment train, wouldn't you focus on the moment they were at their highest? That projection was made scant weeks out from the election, as well. No, because that 88% was basically a prediction of a prediction because as other people pointed out that occurred before news that changed the makeup of the race. You can't blame them for not knowing the news ahead of time. It would be like if I predicted the Rams win the Superbowl this weekend, then we find out on Saturday that 10 players will miss the game due to Covid. I might then revise my prediction to the Bengals winning. If the Rams win wouldn't you say my prediction was wrong because of my final prediction? My initial prediction might have been right but that was made with less information and I revised that prediction once I got more information. Similarly it doesn't make sense to criticize 538 for being less accurate with their early projections when they had less information. As they got more information their predictions became more accurate. It should be obvious that they weren't changing their model in a vacuum to push the odds towards Trump. More information was coming out that improved Trump's odds and the model reflected that. And to be clear I didn't call your comment misinformation. I used it as an example of why it is hard to categorize misinformation. Some might view your comment as misinformation and some might not. The only value judgement I made was that it is "extremely misleading" and I stand by the categorization regardless of the motive behind your comment.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  > Similarly it doesn't make sense to criticize 538 for being less accurate with their early projections when they had less information It must be a good feeling, then, that I have not criticized them. > to be clear I didn't call your comment misinformation Earlier: > Is this "misinformation" meant to smear 538?
  - slg 5y ago
    >It must be a good feeling, then, that I have not criticized them. You were trying to correct someone who was defending the accuracy of the general industry predictions. If you were not directly criticizing 538, the criticism was certainly implied. >> Is this "misinformation" meant to smear 538? Are you familiar with the concept of scare quotes? I specifically used quotes there to indicate that I was not directly calling your comment misinformation but was instead using that term with some detachment.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]