Weird how better modeling which produces clarity on how little uncertainty there is in the race produced MORE horse-race coverage, not less.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
There is literally two events worth checking the polls once, about one week after event, in last two months: Clinton's pneumonia & debate.
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
The way modeling has increased—rather than decreased—horse-race coverage seems to be through faux precision. The race is remarkably stable.
5 replies 16 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Presidential elections are rare events, so modeling has real limits. They are also first-past-the-post so unsettling it would take a lot.
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
IF Trump isn't looking likely in PA, it would take a momentous shift in the race for him to have a shot. Is there one? Then check the polls.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
With a rare, first past-the-post event like POTUS election, percentage distributions of large number of simulations is .. faux precision.
4 replies 4 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
It’s false certainty. Somewhat similar problem to RE CDO modeling. The fans precision is just poor interpretation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bollinigomes
Don't know that much about CDO modeling; am thinking of looking into similar topics/models.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
Here’s my 1-8 Twtstrm yday on topic. (Twitter isn’t a great media for this). There are differences. But false precision is a key 1.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
feel free to send me if there is anything written longer. Faux precision is an interesting twist to the faux pundit drama.
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.