This article, written just before Trump's 2016 victory, is required reading for 2020https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_581ffe18e4b0334571e09e74/amp …
Show this thread
tldr; the author argues that a model that shows Clinton grabbing 265-340 electoral votes in 95% of simulated elections — and NO result <240 EVs — passes "the smell test" because it "produces plausible output" Quick refresher: Clinton wound up with 227 EVspic.twitter.com/VGZizRJIdS
-
-
I softened the blow a bit here — this author rallied his 20 years of experience in statistical model-building to question
@NateSilver538's "professional competency" and "responsibility in reality checking" for *only* assigning Clinton ~2/3 odds of an electoral victoryShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It was inconceivable that Clinton would lose, according to the media "experts." For months, I tried telling everyone in my MBA program to not get their Hope's up because Trump was going to win. Why? Because I came from Arkansas/Middle America and knew why they were voting.
-
It's very easy to say that after the fact. But Clinton only needed 70,000 votes across three states to win. In the majority of universes, I think she would have won. But unlikely events do happen.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The huffington post is a high school newspaper
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If I recall correctly, what they got wrong (and 538 got right) was assuming that different states' outcomes were independent. 538 took into account the possibility of a "systematic polling error", i.e. that different states' outcomes would be correlated with each other.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
he kept doubling down!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Everyone has a theory. Mine is that they wanted Trump voters to give up and stay home on election day, so they fudged the numbers. Then they forgot just how fudged the numbers were and convinced each other they were close.
-
The polls weren’t wrong—at least not by much—and there certainly was no conspiracy. State level polling was never quite good enough to yield high certainty EC predictions. Five Thirty Eight got it right because they crunched the numbers and drew conclusions from there.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.