ST Alpha - "That's probability models, not polling, and anyone who went with 99% was bonkers. -- (edited)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 152

In response to "The same kind of "evidence" that showed he had a 99% chance of losing the election?" by Cuzzin Todd

That's probability models, not polling, and anyone who went with 99% was bonkers. -- (edited)

Posted by ty97 Jan 21 '17, 15:48

The polls overall were close in most cases.

LOTS of people will keep drinking the kool aid, They will drink whatever kool aid is handed to them. You're not trying to win those people. You can't win those people. But those people are a subset of Trump voters. Add in Hillary voters, third party voters, non-voters..... but really the people you are after are the Trump voters you can sway. They exist, a number of them.

Responses:

Nate Silver got slammed by an analyst at some site like HuffPo (but not them). His research indicated 99%. - David, ST's Ultimate Lover Jan 21, 16:04 3
- I think it actually was HuffPo. But models have to allow for unexpected events like Comey to happen - ty97 Jan 21, 16:05 2
  - Could have been, but I tend to dismiss things on HuffPo as quickly as I would dismiss something from Fox. -- nm - Cuzzin Todd Jan 21, 16:21
  - That's the problem with models predicated on history. Nothing can anticipate the unprecedented. - David, ST's Ultimate Lover Jan 21, 16:09

Post a message top

That's probability models, not polling, and anyone who went with 99% was bonkers. -- (edited)

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.