• rodneylives@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Remember, Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016, and when Trump won instead, it was chalked up to the fact that it really was a random chance.

    Don’t panic about this. Keep quiet and keep doing the work to get Trump thrown out. And charge your mental health bills to the Democrats, for putting up an old man up for election in 2020, one who’s even older than Trump, in the first place.

    • tko@tkohhh.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t remember him predicting that she would win. His model (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) gave her a 71% chance of winning. 71% is a long way from 100%, and the result of that election definitely fit within the model.

      That said, you are absolutely correct… we need to keep shining a light on the realities of each of these candidates, because in the light of day Biden is a much better choice than Trump.

      • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Which would make it a more extreme position than his position in this election, so the point stands.

        • tko@tkohhh.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I agree… I was simply clarifying that Nate Silver did NOT predict that Hillary would win (nor is he predicting that Trump will win this election), which is a common misunderstanding about probability. For these types of models to be meaningful to the public, there needs to be literacy on what is meant by the percentages given. Really, I’m just reinforcing rodneylives’ point from another angle!