4 ms·
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 pe
by 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...