This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Yeah. What's the problem?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrate
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
So he was better than Ty. Got it. I have a grasp of the very high probability that I'm smarter and more handsome than you.
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance
This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Yeah. What's the problem?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrate
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
So he was better than Ty. Got it. I have a grasp of the very high probability that I'm smarter and more handsome than you.
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance
I have an unbiased 6-sided die. I say there's a 33% chance that a 1 or a 2 comes up when I roll it. A 1 or a 2 comes up. You: "durrrrrrrrrrrrr"
This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Yeah. What's the problem?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrate
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
So he was better than Ty. Got it. I have a grasp of the very high probability that I'm smarter and more handsome than you.
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance
I have an unbiased 6-sided die. I say there's a 33% chance that a 1 or a 2 comes up when I roll it. A 1 or a 2 comes up. You: "durrrrrrrrrrrrr"
This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Yeah. What's the problem?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrate
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
the probability of someone winning the EC in a landslide with a million vote loss in the PV is not good. I don't know how you can have a problem with 30%. Huff post had it at 98%, NYT at 90%+
This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Yeah. What's the problem?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrate
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
So he was better than Ty. Got it. I have a grasp of the very high probability that I'm smarter and more handsome than you.
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance
Comments
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance
But I had Trump
I know numbers.
Huff post had it at 98%, NYT at 90%+
Not sure why he has a cult since you can get the same bullshit from Chest.
The whole website is worthless.