Did you trust Nate Silver more than Dilbert in predicting the election? That wouldn't have worked out for you either.
-
-
Actually, Nate Silver was VERY clear heading into the election that there were several very viable paths to a Trump victory.
-
Yes he was. Odds were heavily towards Hillary. Doesn't mean data was false.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why is this topic so prime for doubt? This seems like flat earth type of doubt at this stage. Not because of these two hurricanes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes and the difference in certainty between decades of peer reviewed science and one guys opinion is astronomical
-
Especially when that one guy's opinion was nowhere near certain. Didn't he give Trump a 20% chance or so the day of the election?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Predicting how people vote not analogous to hard science. People in voting booth are different than carbon atoms.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
538 had a Trump win at about 30% - that's not exactly a "certain" Clinton victory
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What's likelier: 95% of climate scientists see overwhelming evidence global warming's real or are part of huge hoax for no apparent reason?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not about certainty. It's about expertise. Your fanaticism about Trump is sad
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.