• @commandar
    link
    27
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    A lot of other models were saying something ridiculous like Clinton had 95% chance to win or something. Nate Silver’s model seems better than others based on this, if anything.

    The constant attacks on how 538’s model performed in 2016 says more about statistics literacy than it does about the model.

    There is plenty to criticize Nate Silver for. Take your pick. Personally, the political nihilism that’s increasingly flirted with “anti-woke” sentiment is good enough for me. Some people might prefer taking issue with the degenerate gambling. The guy has pumped out plenty of really dumb hot takes over the years, so you have your options.

    But his models, historically, have performed relatively well if you understand that they’re models and not absolute predictors.

    • @shalafi
      link
      English
      94 hours ago

      People forget that Clinton lost because of Comey’s October revelation that the FBI was reopening the investigation into her emails.

      • @Ensign_Crab
        link
        English
        54 hours ago

        I was assured for a solid 7 years that it was solely the fault of everyone who was even the slightest bit disappointed about the primaries.

    • @takeda
      link
      24 hours ago

      Looking at the historical election wins where president with lower popular vote won, trump clearly is outlier and either had outrageous luck (I doubt it) or help to push things just enough to get enough EC votes.

      Of course this help, that he got in 2016 he still is getting right now so we should still assume odds will be in his favor and make won’t get suspended and vote (the more people vote, the harder is to artificially affect the results).

    • @takeda
      link
      14 hours ago

      deleted by creator