4 ms·

What are you talking about? In 2016, the majority of outlets gave Clinton a 90% chance or more. This time almost everyone said it was 50:50. The result is some

• SilverBirch 2y ago
  Whilst this is objectively true - this result is basically within the margin of error of most polls. I highly doubt this argument is going to be accepted by most people. It'll be exactly like Nate Silver screaming into the void for the last 8 years pointing out he gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning and that happens... 30% of the time!
  • variadix 2y ago
    This isn’t an interesting statement. I could pull any numbers out of a hat in (0, 1) as probabilities and regardless of the outcome could use the same excuse because there is only a single event to observe.
• FireBeyond 2y ago
  No, they didn't. For one, they said Clinton had a 70% chance of winning. But perhaps more importantly, people's poor understanding of stats meant that many people interpreted that as "She's going to get 70% of the vote" (i.e., a landslide, "and so I don't need to vote").
  • kgwgk 2y ago
    > they said Clinton had a 70% chance of winning. No, they didn't. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential... https://www.reuters.com/article/world/clinton-has-90-percent-chance-of-winning-reutersipsos-states-of-the-nation-idUSKBN1322J0/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/clinton-has-90-percent...