Key actor in this saga: People saw 70-90% Clinton win probability; didn't understand that 1-2% polling error would move that by 30-40%.
-
-
I think NYT's way of explaining it in terms of professional NFL kicker's chance of missing an x yard field goal was reasonable.
-
No, that's the model probability. What they needed to explain was what correlated error could mean.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.. Whole world needs explainers on sources of error and corresponding scale of volatility in probability models.https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/807461082985992192 …
-
Most people never really get statistics - and for much of it, you need to be able to work thru the math to have insight.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not just that. There was a lot of anti-538 commentary by others.
Thanks. 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.