3 ms·

> > You haven't contradicted anything. Yes, I have. I have even explained the contradiction. Let's dissect this: > No, its lots of events with the same method

> > You haven't contradicted anything. Yes, I have. I have even explained the contradiction. Let's dissect this: > No, its lots of events with the same methodology (within an election cycle, within any class of election events.) So if that were accurate, it would require that he have an algorithm which is exactly the same from election to election, and requires no human tweaking for each one. Is that the case? Does his methodology never change, which would require that the inputs are always done the same way, too? I think you see the problem here. The "inputs" are the polls which get done mostly by third-party polling firms, using methods that are always evolving. Secondly, I don't believe 538 has an algorithm that's free of human intervention and never changes. What that means is, each election is a unique event.

dragonwriter 4y ago
Even if each election cycle was a unique event because of model tweaks between cycles, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of events and several orders of magnitude more of predictions at different times in each cycle.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  No, there are not "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of events and several orders of magnitude" There is one event. The US House, Senate, and state elections have completely different methodologies and no bearing on the Presidential election, which is enormously complicated by the Electoral College.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The US House, Senate, and state elections have completely different methodologies No, they don’t. > and no bearing on the Presidential election Even when considering the Presidential general election in isolation, there are currently 56 (51 statewide, including D.C., plus by-district elections for 2 electors in Maine and 3 in Nebraska) elections of presidential electors, which not only “have a bearing on” but strictly determine (absent irregularities that 538 doesn’t purport to address) the Presidential election.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      OK, you're right, there are 56 elections, and what I meant by "no bearing" is, there has to be polling in most or all of the swing states. Furthermore, the swing states have weights. So it's a much more difficult problem than a single district, and a much noisier estimate since the per-state noise compounds. I don't blame anyone for getting it wrong. It's a hard problem.

dragonwriter 4y ago

Even if each election cycle was a unique event because of model tweaks between cycles, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of events and several orders of magnitude more of predictions at different times in each cycle.

AlbertCory 4y ago
No, there are not "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of events and several orders of magnitude" There is one event. The US House, Senate, and state elections have completely different methodologies and no bearing on the Presidential election, which is enormously complicated by the Electoral College.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The US House, Senate, and state elections have completely different methodologies No, they don’t. > and no bearing on the Presidential election Even when considering the Presidential general election in isolation, there are currently 56 (51 statewide, including D.C., plus by-district elections for 2 electors in Maine and 3 in Nebraska) elections of presidential electors, which not only “have a bearing on” but strictly determine (absent irregularities that 538 doesn’t purport to address) the Presidential election.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    OK, you're right, there are 56 elections, and what I meant by "no bearing" is, there has to be polling in most or all of the swing states. Furthermore, the swing states have weights. So it's a much more difficult problem than a single district, and a much noisier estimate since the per-state noise compounds. I don't blame anyone for getting it wrong. It's a hard problem.