4 ms·
That's fair! I probably should have realized that, given that I already knew that his 70-30 prediction of Clinton winning in 2016 didn't mean he "predicting wro
by saghm 4y ago
That's fair! I probably should have realized that, given that I already knew that his 70-30 prediction of Clinton winning in 2016 didn't mean he "predicting wrong"; I'm guessing I was just less aware of how his models worked back in 2012 than I was by 2016, so I didn't really consider what it meant to "predict the states".
- yowzadave 4y agoI think many people subconsciously conflate a "70% chance of winning" with a "70% of the vote" prediction, when the reality is much closer--a 70% chance of winning could very easily go the other way, given some systemic polling error and/or late-breaking news!
- saghm 4y agoYeah, it's definitely tricky to communicate. The chances of _either_ candidate getting 70% of the vote in any recent presidential election would be incredibly small; even 55% would be a huge anomaly. Most people wouldn't feel very enlightened looking at a probability distribution of potential vote percentages for each candidate on a CNN graphic though, especially when they'd basically just look like giant spikes around 48-52%.