The Biggest Disappointment from the Nov Election?

[busterbrown]

For Me. Besides the Results of course?

Nate Silver’s 538

Anyone else feel the same way? Realize there still a lot of questions regarding machine hacking..

But as far as I’m concerned 538 will not be my go to choice in future elections..

Might be hard headed and wrong but its the way I feel...

Am I way off base?

[aidbo]

1. They had the odds at 71.4% vs 28.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Some were castigating them at the time that they had Trump's number as high as they did.

[busterbrown]

4. Yea... Not based on facts.

Just based on their P.Opinions..

We’re suppose to react to the professionals....

Professionals (538) had the odds deep towards Trump’s Defeat?

[aidbo]

6. Based on their simulations. Which were based on aggregate polling numbers

It's difficult to put probabilities on an event that only happens once, like a presidential election.

So they run simulations on computers with that polling data. And in their simulations, they must have had DT winning about 29% of the time. That's almost a 1 in 3 chance for him to win, and he did. Ask a gambler if he/she would bet their home on those odds. (Probably a bad analogy, there are probably many that would take those odds, but I wouldn't)

Yet much of the public assumed it was a lock, because much of the public don't really 'get' statistics.

It's not our fault that probability is difficult for us to grasp intuitively, our brain just isn't 'wired' that way. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-our-brains-do-not-intuitively-grasp-probabilities/

Edited to add: of course the media also bear much of the blame for allowing the public to believe it was a 'lock'.

[busterbrown]

7. So i suggest that 538 does it own polling from now on..

Because their methodology did not work.. That way there will be absolutely no excuses or explanations needed
next time... Besides everyone had Romney, and Obama winning...
Bottom line 538 is done in many minds!

[LisaL]

9. Polling costs a lot of money.

[busterbrown]

10. Yea and he probably made a ton of money

over the last few election cycles.. Too bad.. I’m sure you’ll agree.

[aidbo]

11. What I'm trying to explain is that their methodology did work, to an extent.

Professionals (538) had the odds deep towards Trump’s Defeat?

No. 538 had the odds of Trump winning at nearly 1 in 3 which are decidedly not "deep towards Trump's Defeat".

There was, in my opinion, a general belief that Hillary 'had it in the bag'. That in itself could have (I stress could have) depressed turnout enough to put Trump over the edge in those three states that ended up making all the difference in the Electoral College. Only something like 77,000 votes more for Trump combined in MI, WI, and PA. Polling data is also suspect these days and their prediction models are only as good as the data that go into them.

I don't know a better way to put this to you, but I just don't think 538's prediction was as far off as you seem to believe it was.

[elehhhhna]

2. The people on the ballots.

For me anyway.

[marlakay]

3. Unless the machines were hacked

He really blew it, and your right no one will trust him.

[beachbum bob]

5. By far the number of progressive and liberals who chose not to vote

Or voted third party because they couldn't support the lesser of 2 evils but had no problem with their actions allowing true evil to come to Washington....A disgrace.

[LisaL]

8. Some people don't appear to understand probabilities.

He was giving Trump 1 in 3 chance. Those are pretty good odds.

[Shandris]

12. We're angry at Nate Silver?

Can someone explain why? I haven't heard much about him since his changeup a couple days before the election.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Liberals who fail to vote. Sarandonites. Steiners

If liberals show up, liberals win.

Period.