In the end, polling averages will probably "call" the winners of all but 1-3 states correctly, along with the winner of the popular vote, which should wind up at Biden +4/+5. That's not great. It's better to look at *margins* and some of the margins were off.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
@zeynep is the reason I joined Twitter, and the reason I subscribe to The Atlantic. She is a treasure!
End of conversation
-
-
-
Have these guys given any plausible explanations defending pollsters for getting WI and MI so wrong at what appears to be even bigger margins compared to 2016 even after model adjustments for education, etc? That seems to be the important question to me.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Beating the “people can’t understand analytics” drum is getting super old super fast.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The fundamental problem is a lack of mathematics in the discussion of poll results along the way. Margin of error is never accounted for in a meaningful way.
-
I think the margin of error is perhaps the only thing properly accounted for in the general discussion.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Weak sauce from Nate. His A+ pollster ,NYTime/Sienna, was so wildly off the mark state wise that you’d think the other Nate had never done polls before. That’s not mediocre . That’s terrible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's not 3 out of 50, but 3 out of at most 10, because anyone can "predict" the results of about 40 states. That's already mediocre - including the margins does make it pretty terrible, actually.
-
OK, ok, let’s not let catastrophically and systematically wrong be the enemy of terrible?
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.