"Ticket-splitting" might have come not just from Biden at top voters: I know of people who could not vote for Trump, but did not want Democratic trifecta and voted for & worked hard for R senators. Also Maine: some Collins voters may have thought she'd in a Dem Senate/Prez setup.
-
Show this thread
-
Look, if I were betting, I'd bet Biden would win, probably comfortably. He might still win, but narrowly. But I was *uncertain*. I don't think we can model rare events well. We can't poll well anymore, let alone during a pandemic. But uncertainty isn't what forecasts communicate.
11 replies 23 retweets 300 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Jason Spicer
Yes. I know electoral forecasts are one thing among many things, but it's part of a broader pattern where we focus too much on the wrong things. We just need to do better acknowledging when we honestly don't know, and when predicting is besides the point.https://twitter.com/spicerjason/status/1324036088177004544 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Jason Spicer @spicerjasonAs@zeynep notes in@nytimes, this@The_JOP study's experiments show election forecasts confuse voters, reduce turnout, + change voting behavior. Simply put: publishing forecasts can change results, a variation of the observer effect. Worth pondering. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/708682 …5 replies 23 retweets 163 likesShow this thread -
Updated my pre-election op-ed on the case for ignoring forecasts. I know, I know. But there's the future. We can't poll with enough certainty and precision; we can't do good models of events that happen only once every four years; it distorts the process https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/opinion/election-forecasts-modeling-flaws.html …pic.twitter.com/ylgVjF1UYW
3 replies 26 retweets 141 likesShow this thread -
Now people are telling me that the problem isn't the model, it's that polls are off (again). Well, yeah. I wrote that in the piece. Why then are we so focused on forecasts that don't have reliable data and whose models can only be evaluated once every four years—i.e not really?
22 replies 13 retweets 253 likesShow this thread -
So it’s now: okay the polls were off but we will weight the polls better next time. Next time!!! The undercount weren’t “shy” or necessarily suffering from social desirability. Some of them think of the pollsters as the cultural enemy. Good luck modeling that void with weights.
18 replies 27 retweets 327 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Sadie Gurman
The problems outlined here, especially non-random low trust of pollsters, are not fixable by demographic weights. Or any method I can think of—besides already knowing the answer. Not amount of talent or effort can model this. Sometimes one can guess right. Sometimes not.https://twitter.com/sgurman/status/1324150511323500546 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Sadie GurmanVerified account @sgurmanSome believe a distrust of institutions is more pervasive than anticipated across many voter groups, and that it leads conservative voters to avoid participating in polls in disproportionate numbers. The story everyone wants to read by @aaronzitner https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-went-wrong-with-the-polls-this-year-11604536409 …14 replies 20 retweets 141 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Nate Silver
Nice denominator except that you barely need polls to call about 40 of those states. Of the remaining 10, the polls are off by large numbers systematically in practically all of them. (Some got the coin toss right! Very reassuring!)https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1324379322740867073 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Nate SilverVerified account @NateSilver538And a lot of it is because of the blue shift in late-counted ballots. If we go to bed at 1am on Wednesday and polls have called 48/50 states correctly and Biden's won the popular vote by 5.3 points or something, I don't think there's a "polls blew it again!" narrative.Show this thread10 replies 27 retweets 316 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @zeynep
Do you believe then that all social science based on low-frequency data should be completely ignored because of changing terrain over the sample period?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
Ok, but whatever the limitations of inferring from the historical joint distribution of polling errors, I still prefer it to other forms of horse race speculation. And I gather the shock of Trump's 2016 win has left readers with about the right level of skepticism for forecasts.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.