Have yall never played poker/thrown a dice/anything random? When he says libs can relax its because the ODDS of winning are in his favor, but they are still fucking odds. Trump can still roll a 6 and win. If trump wins a) if he predicted that biden would have won, you'd get angry. b) if he predicted trump would have won, thats a shitty prediction that has little basis in the data and even if he was right nobody would listen to a guy who guessed right by chance!!
Think that i win if a coin lands thrice on heads. It's a 12.5% chance i win. Would you bet for me? No. Would you be surprised if i win? Also no, i still had a chance.
The chances lie in the fact that many ppl will vote on a whim based on how they feel one particular day, and you cant know all the data or how reliable it is. He isnt covering his ass, he is acknowledging that he cannot know with utmost precision. Its not a political/emotional thing, its how math works.
pff ok, ill wait for proof of that.
It might take the Supreme Court handing it to him, but he will probably win.
oh yeah, that for sure, but libs are still worried about what the elctorial college will look like
The makeup of the electoral college will be what the Supreme Court decides on. Trump will most likely end up with 270 in one way or another.
ok, how do i tell you this dude, this is not what he is predicting? you cant put numbers on those things. stop trying to look smart like that, it's like considering "what if i get up and punch you" in a game of chess. i know you are right but this is not what any of us is talking about
He's predicting who will win what states based on the official vote count in each. The official vote count in some state will likely be in dispute leaving the SC to make a decision that ultimately determines it. We will never know the actual vote count, so it doesn't matter. In your own words, "you can't put numbers on those things".
If he were around to predict Gore winning in 2000, would you say he got it right only for it to be overruled by the Supreme Court? No, because we don't know who won Florida.
mh?
also yes i would say he got it right. it's not up to him to know what will happen after people cast their votes. his job ends there. he doesnt make any prediction on the matter of policy, or eventual behaviour of a singular politician. you ask him "how will the people vote", he gives you an answer, then if tomfoolery happens, it's not his job to know.
Not sure your confusion here, do you know the exact number of people who went into the voting booth in Florida in 2000 with the intent to vote for Gore? No one does.
oh ok that. i suppose it's more of an exception than a rule.
But that's exactly what's going to happen. There will be some dispute about a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania or some shit, a decision will be made to settle that dispute, and Trump will win it. We'll never know how many votes each person actually got. A prediction of some "actual vote count" is completely useless and unverifiable.
Then his odds aren't wrong, that isn't what the model is predicting votes. It's predicting who gets more votes in actuality. Predicting what the recorded votes will be is a separate prediction and difficult because it's hard to know exactly what will happen
Then it would be predicting something that's literally impossible to verify. There is no "in actuality" without knowing the intents and situations of every single eligible voter in the state.
It's a completely useless prediction to make.
Who got more votes "in actuality" in Florida in 2000? Does "in actuality" take into account the people who accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan? How many people actually did that?
Polling is an attempt to figure this out. Polls have a margin of error but are generally accurate.
If votes aren't counted properly it's impossible to know. All we can do is estimate the actual count, and know the official count that gets reported.