Did you trust Nate Silver more than Dilbert in predicting the election? That wouldn't have worked out for you either.
-
-
Can't tell if you're trolling or not. No, he didn't.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What's important here, Hutch, is that we cannot trust any scientific conclusions and it's best to just believe whatever you want.
-
Naturally yes.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
538 never had HRC over 88% and they had her at ~70% on election day.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Adams, you're the person who brought Nate Silver's probabilities into the convo, the least you can do is accurately state the percentages.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Holy sh*t. It's true what they say. You're absolutely mental. To think I subscribed to DNRC in my youth (shudder).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But on election day, he was not at 2%...
#STATISTICS !Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Cool, jot that down along with 99 other major predictions and we'll tally the score.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You could be talking about diff pts in time. In July per Wayback Machine, 538 had Trump at 40% chance. Scott early primary time point?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tedious to search Wayback Machine looking for odds for prez in early primary days on 538 website.
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.