Ok so this is weird revisionism, because I remember 538 was the least bullish on Clinton the entire time. The pre election podcast had her odds at 70% or something, which was way better than NYT, etc.
Not to say Nate was "right" about 2016, but compared to other outlets, his actually was closer to the statistical average.
He still sucks, but he was actually better than other pundits in 2016. They actually got tons of shit from libs because they couldn't comprehend that Trump had 1/3 odds
this is also my recollection. i was checking that shit weekly. i didn't want hillary to win, but her losing to such an obviously awful candidate seemed so unbelievable that the odds they were giving were incomprehensible to me.
and even if it said 99% that doesn't necessarily mean the model was wrong. Sometimes you roll a 1 but the odds of rolling not-1 are still 95% or 83⅓% or whatever
fuck nate but also most of us, including me, don't have math expertise
I was coming to the comments to ask if I was wrong about this guy and if he had actually been right more than that one single time
taking this as confirmation that I correctly remembered him as an arrogant dumbass
tbh he was probably not far off other statistical analysis in the past but I recall that on the 2020 election his website was extremely wrong
I remember on the morning of the 2016 election, his dip shit voting science site said Clinton had a 93% chance of winning.
Ok so this is weird revisionism, because I remember 538 was the least bullish on Clinton the entire time. The pre election podcast had her odds at 70% or something, which was way better than NYT, etc.
Not to say Nate was "right" about 2016, but compared to other outlets, his actually was closer to the statistical average.
The 93% might have been one of the forecast models, but the day of the election it was only 71.
He still sucks, but he was actually better than other pundits in 2016. They actually got tons of shit from libs because they couldn't comprehend that Trump had 1/3 odds
this is also my recollection. i was checking that shit weekly. i didn't want hillary to win, but her losing to such an obviously awful candidate seemed so unbelievable that the odds they were giving were incomprehensible to me.
and even if it said 99% that doesn't necessarily mean the model was wrong. Sometimes you roll a 1 but the odds of rolling not-1 are still 95% or 83⅓% or whatever
fuck nate but also most of us, including me, don't have math expertise
And I believed it because the Adults In The Room knew What They Were Doing.
8 years later I'm a rabid communist who counts down the hours until the West collapses
We've been waiting for nearly a century now
Sure he’s been right multiple times. He calls races in winner-take-all elections in the US.