592
Trump losing sleep over polling numbers days before election
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
592 points (96.5% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1165 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Okay and on Election Day 2016 he had it at 60-70% Clinton when I went out to vote. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think he was wrong. I think he underestimated Trump. I don’t think it was 70/30.
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.
Well good thing statistics aren't based on "what that one random guy on the internet thinks"
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, all these people are acting like at 2:1 odds are some kind of impossible situation still to this day.
He hadn't counted your vote yet.