- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/13/20 at 8:53 pm to Korkstand
quote:
And you base this opinion on absolutely nothing other than your feelings.
quote:
Very good. And the point is that, even with "good" data, Trump winning all 3 of those states would have been a relative longshot. Just because something is improbable doesn't mean the probability was "wrong" when it happens. And 538 gave Trump TWICE as high a probability to win the entire election, and you just think that was "wrong" for some unknown reason.
It was wrong because it severely underestimated his actual chances. It doesn't matter if it was closer than the rest of the world.
quote:
Very good. And the point is that, even with "good" data, Trump winning all 3 of those states would have been a relative longshot.
Explain why that is important? Do you think Trump needed to win all 3 to win? If not how many did he have to win? And, when you answer that, explain why it's not a significant that those states be 50/50 instead of 80/20?
Posted on 4/13/20 at 8:57 pm to Russ337
quote:
Maybe the shelter in place actually worked...
We'll see in November.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:07 pm to Korkstand
quote:
I'm caught up in something, that's for sure.
That's your ignorance.
quote:
A lot of the specifics in their methods are explained on their site. It's broken down state by state, poll by poll, and includes a lot of their adjustments such as a given poll's historical accuracy, how much they have adjusted it, how heavily they weight it, etc. Perhaps you should look into all that before proclaiming that someone was "wrong"?
But, it was wrong.
quote:
Wisconsin
538 projection: Hillary by 5.3
Actual: Trump by 0.7
Error: 6.0 to Hillary
Michigan
538 projection: Hillary by 4.2
Actual: Trump by 0.3
Error: 4.5 to Hillary
Pennsylvania
538 projection: Hillary by 3.7
Actual: Trump by 0.7
Error: 4.4 to Hillary
These are not unexpected errors! This is not "very far off". They happen all the time in every election.
Just stop. Statistical errors don't only happen in one direction. Margin of error doesn't exist in one direction.
All 10 polls in Michigan had Clinton winning in 538s adjusted numbers (from Clinton . 100%. From Clinton +1 to Clinton +8 The one poll that had Trump leading was adjusted from Trump +2 to Clinton +2. The one that had it tied was adjusted to Clinton +2.
All 10 polls in Wisconsin had Clinton the winner with 538s adjusted numbers. 100% From Clinton +1 to Clinton +12
All 10 polls in Pennsylvania had Clinton the winner with 538s adjusted numbers. 100%. From Clinton +2 to Clinton +7. The one poll that had Trump winning was adjusted from Trump +2 to Clinton +1.
It's absurd to think he had his pulse on Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Everyone knows polling missed the mark. Conservatives were explaining it to you before the election. Silver didn't recognize it to the level needed to offer an accurate probability for a Trump win.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:15 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It's pretty clear at this point that you think the probability value should have been closer to the voting percentages. Yet another example that shows that you do not understand probability as well as you think you do.
That's only because you aren't smart. If polling shows a 50/50 vote split, the probability should 50/50.
However, as the vote split increases, the probability increases exponentially. At 60/40 polling, it's near 100%, for example. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:22 pm to moneyg
This thread is derailed as hell
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:24 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
It’s almost as though they were making shite up.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:48 pm to moneyg
quote:Yeah no shite. You are the one focusing on these 3 states. Do I need to compile a list of states that went Clinton's way vs. the polls?
Just stop. Statistical errors don't only happen in one direction. Margin of error doesn't exist in one direction.
quote:You need to click the "show more polls" button there, hoss. There are 80+ polls for each state. You are looking at the top 10 most heavily weighted, but the rest of them hold some weight. And most of them were adjusted in Trump's direction.
All 10 polls... All 10 polls... All 10 polls...
quote:You keep saying that, so let's define it. What, in your opinion, would be the range of probabilities of a Trump win that you would consider "right"?
Everyone knows polling missed the mark. Conservatives were explaining it to you before the election. Silver didn't recognize it to the level needed to offer an accurate probability for a Trump win.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:57 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Fake news. Fake results. The media is a total joke like it’s been for years.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:57 pm to VolsOut4Harambe
quote:
LaToya is Ghana take credit for this.
She probably will want to have a second Mardi Gras for the summer now.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 10:06 pm to moneyg
quote:
That's only because you aren't smart.
quote:Good job. I'm proud of you.
If polling shows a 50/50 vote split, the probability should 50/50.
quote:Great job! A++!
However, as the vote split increases, the probability increases exponentially. At 60/40 polling, it's near 100%, for example.
quote:You don't.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
But what you do need to explain to me is why you insist on saying the probabilities were "wrong"? It's just a clear case of hindsight bias to make such a statement.
Page 15 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News