Ok so this is weird revisionism, because I remember 538 was the least bullish on Clinton the entire time. The pre election podcast had her odds at 70% or something, which was way better than NYT, etc.
Not to say Nate was “right” about 2016, but compared to other outlets, his actually was closer to the statistical average.
He still sucks, but he was actually better than other pundits in 2016. They actually got tons of shit from libs because they couldn’t comprehend that Trump had 1/3 odds
this is also my recollection. i was checking that shit weekly. i didn’t want hillary to win, but her losing to such an obviously awful candidate seemed so unbelievable that the odds they were giving were incomprehensible to me.
and even if it said 99% that doesn’t necessarily mean the model was wrong. Sometimes you roll a 1 but the odds of rolling not-1 are still 95% or 83⅓% or whatever
fuck nate but also most of us, including me, don’t have math expertise
Ok so this is weird revisionism, because I remember 538 was the least bullish on Clinton the entire time. The pre election podcast had her odds at 70% or something, which was way better than NYT, etc.
Not to say Nate was “right” about 2016, but compared to other outlets, his actually was closer to the statistical average.
The 93% might have been one of the forecast models, but the day of the election it was only 71.
He still sucks, but he was actually better than other pundits in 2016. They actually got tons of shit from libs because they couldn’t comprehend that Trump had 1/3 odds
this is also my recollection. i was checking that shit weekly. i didn’t want hillary to win, but her losing to such an obviously awful candidate seemed so unbelievable that the odds they were giving were incomprehensible to me.
and even if it said 99% that doesn’t necessarily mean the model was wrong. Sometimes you roll a 1 but the odds of rolling not-1 are still 95% or 83⅓% or whatever
fuck nate but also most of us, including me, don’t have math expertise