Yes, it's possible that despite close in polls, the margin of error would favour one candidate being more likely to win.
"Everyone knows" something until there's evidence to the contrary.
The polls and outcome could still be wrong if something unexpected happens, like if all the people who don't usually vote decide this is the most important election and vote for the first and only time in their life.
They didn't get a certain answer so it was useless this time, but if it had turned out that somehow one candidate won a supermajority of simulations then you got useful information. Can't know unless you ask.
![[Not the Onion] Simulations](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/eb31da58-12e6-442a-802a-bb751b72cecf.png){kind=link}
Is there a point to this? From the tweet it doesn't give new information. It just reaffirms that three contest will be close which everyone knew.
Yes, it's possible that despite close in polls, the margin of error would favour one candidate being more likely to win.
"Everyone knows" something until there's evidence to the contrary.
The polls and outcome could still be wrong if something unexpected happens, like if all the people who don't usually vote decide this is the most important election and vote for the first and only time in their life.
They didn't get a certain answer so it was useless this time, but if it had turned out that somehow one candidate won a supermajority of simulations then you got useful information. Can't know unless you ask.
There is utility in some cases; there's correlations between polling and areas, and the electoral college makes it all complicated (by design)
But, like, here? No, no practical difference between any of the 'models' all showing some variation of 'its a toss up'