what about 2016? As of Election Day 2016, the fivethirtyeight model gave Clinton a 71% chance of winning. This was lower than basically every competing model, and importantly, 71% is not 100%. Trump got lucky in 2016, and the model’s percentage reflected that.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Why on earth are we still listening to Nate Silver?
It’s just one take. Is there a reason to not give his takes the time of day?
what about 2016? As of Election Day 2016, the fivethirtyeight model gave Clinton a 71% chance of winning. This was lower than basically every competing model, and importantly, 71% is not 100%. Trump got lucky in 2016, and the model’s percentage reflected that.
That is not how I’d characterize 2016 at all. Also, I would like to refer you to argument number two.