Donald Trump is reportedly losing sleep, battling anxiety, and obsessing over his polling numbers as the GOP nominee hopes to hang his hat on any sign that he will return to the White House.

A campaign official told Axios that Trump is asking more questions and pushing his staff to work even more to ensure that he will come out ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris come Election Day.

“Trump’s anxiety is evident in his late-night and early morning calls to aides in which he peppers them with questions on how things are going—and whether they think he’ll win,” Axios reported.

  • hddsx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    19 days ago

    Okay and on Election Day 2016 he had it at 60-70% Clinton when I went out to vote. He was very wrong

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      19 days ago

      He was very wrong

      If everytimw you say something has a 30% chance of happening, it never happens, then your models are wrong because they should say zero percent. If you say something has a 30% chance of happening and it happens, that doesn’t mean you were wrong.

      It’s shocking how many people don’t understand percentages.

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        19 days ago

        I do. At 60%, it’s drawing 3/5 cards. I wouldn’t take that chance. At 70%, it’s 3/4. There’s always a chance of the 1/4, sure. But I expect it to happen.

        That’s part of why I’m so uncomfortable right now. I wouldn’t take a coin flip.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          18 days ago

          I wouldn’t take that chance.

          Not taking the chance isn’t the same as it never happening. Speaking as a decently experienced poker player, you can understand your odds, and make the right call, and still lose because of it. It doesn’t mean you were wrong, it’s just statistics.

          • hddsx@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 days ago

            I mean, I played competitive LCG before. I completely understand that it’s possible. I have definitely taken and lost on a 60% chance. It’s just not a risk I would take.

            And I maintain that he was wrong. I don’t think it was a 70% chance. By the time I got back from voting, he had revised it closer to 55-60%. That seems more accurate to me. I think he underestimated Trump.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      19 days ago

      I think it was right around 35% as you say. Unlikely, but not impossible for Trump to win. If Trump hit a one out of three lucky shot, that should be somewhat surprising, but not too very surprising.

      Anyhow, he’s saying this one is an even coin flip.

      • Starbuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Yeah, all these people are acting like at 2:1 odds are some kind of impossible situation still to this day.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      19 days ago

      Ugh for the billionth time, he wasn’t wrong. That is not how statistics works. He gave a percentage chance. That’s it. If I say there is a 70% chance Clinton wins, and she loses, that doesn’t mean I was wrong.

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        I think he was wrong. I think he underestimated Trump. I don’t think it was 70/30.

        • roy_mustang76@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 days ago

          He had it at 70/30, when the poll/pundit environment was giving Hillary 95% chances.

          He gave much more realistic odds than most any pundit of that cycle.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          Well good thing statistics aren’t based on “what that one random guy on the internet thinks”

          • hddsx@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            I mean, at the time he had a lot of inputs for his model and I have almost none, but his are also just what he thinks.

          • hddsx@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            I mean, at the time he had a lot of inputs for his model and I have almost none, but his are also just what he thinks.