he doesn't mention how the misses were *all in the same fucking direction,* which I think is kind of the key issue in a lot of peoples' minds
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @germanrlopez
There's also a huge false precision problem -- you can't make statements like "he has an 87 percent chance of winning" and then criticize people for not understanding the uncertainty around that number
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_cingraham @germanrlopez
This piece by
@zeynep is really good on these issues https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/opinion/election-forecasts-modeling-flaws.html …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_cingraham @germanrlopez
Thank you. Wow. What on earth is this 48 of 50 correct? Everyone knows 40 to 45 out of that 50 without a single poll. There is maybe ~5-7 states at stake. And "got it right" includes missed by 8% but got it "right" by a razor-thin (WI) etc. And then there's Senate and House!
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
The only part I agree is, yeah, there needs to be better communication around how we can't poll with single-digit response rates and this much non-random missing.
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.