Theres also only 1 election, you cant run it multiple times to collect data and see how close your prediction matched up with 100 elections.
On top of that, theres only been like 80 presidential elections, right? And there hasn't been that many that are similar to the system of today. So you have, maybe, 8 or 10 actual historical elections to base your predictions on? And how many of those have the fine grain data available that we have now to determine likely voters?
All they're doing is guessing and putting a patina of statistic aesthetic - thats why Diggler could do as well or better as Nate Silver.
Theres also only 1 election, you cant run it multiple times to collect data and see how close your prediction matched up with 100 elections.
On top of that, theres only been like 80 presidential elections, right? And there hasn't been that many that are similar to the system of today. So you have, maybe, 8 or 10 actual historical elections to base your predictions on? And how many of those have the fine grain data available that we have now to determine likely voters?
All they're doing is guessing and putting a patina of statistic aesthetic - thats why Diggler could do as well or better as Nate Silver.
Sounds like some application of approximate bayesian could be relevant