Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#21

Post by filoleg »

kadoban wrote: post #19
Jonovono wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone paying attention was pretty certain Trump was going to win that. All you had to do was look at Trumps subreddit vs Hilarys. Look at Trumps rally turnouts. The energy behind Trump was insane and it seemed pretty clear something was going on in the media to make it sound like only a "minority" of people supported him. That's why I bet around $1000 with some coworkers he would win that were certain he was going t…

> Anyone paying attention was pretty certain Trump was going to win that. All you had to do was look at Trumps subreddit vs Hilarys. Look at Trumps rally turnouts. How'd that work out in 2020?

Pretty well, to be honest.

By 2020, no one was underestimating Trump anymore, and it was clear people cared enough to vote him out for real. The energy at his rallies was no longer there. His subreddit, where the massive following was making strong waves during 2016 elections, was gone. Hillary not running anymore helped as well.

And that's just the most obvious things.

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#22

Post by GameOfFrowns »

kadoban wrote: post #19
Jonovono wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone paying attention was pretty certain Trump was going to win that. All you had to do was look at Trumps subreddit vs Hilarys. Look at Trumps rally turnouts. The energy behind Trump was insane and it seemed pretty clear something was going on in the media to make it sound like only a "minority" of people supported him. That's why I bet around $1000 with some coworkers he would win that were certain he was going t…

> Anyone paying attention was pretty certain Trump was going to win that. All you had to do was look at Trumps subreddit vs Hilarys. Look at Trumps rally turnouts. How'd that work out in 2020?

>How'd that work out in 2020?

In 2020, obviously senile and charisma-void, candidate Joe Biden surprisingly manifested ~81 (Edit: actually 8) million more votes than the 'second-coming of Christ' Barack Obama before him, while speaking to low double-digit audiences at his rally stops. Really makes you think.

Edit: in 2020 Biden received 81,284,000 votes , Trump 74,221,000 votes, while in 2008 Obama got 69,498,516 votes

Thanks to the user remarking on the error. It's the kind of mistake that happens when you rewrite a comment ten times.

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#23

Post by rgifford »

meatsauce wrote: post #15
elikoga wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A minority did vote for trump though

President Trump won the popular vote in 30 of 50 states.

9 of those 30 states have more cows than people [1].

When your state is a single dude standing in a field filled with cows, getting the popular vote doesn't say much.

1. https://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-vs-human-popula...

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#24

Post by ChrisLomont »

egberts1 wrote: post #13
Sakos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their predictions were far higher than anybody else. I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do. They can't just ignore data because it "feels" like it's more likely that Trump will win. Its not a number they arbitrarily decide on. Based on the numbers they had, they made the most accurate estimation they could.

Have you actually gauged 538’s own probabilities against themselves? I mean it’s not like them attaining “The Founders” status (excuse me, Isaac Asimov), not even closed.

>Have you actually gauged 538’s own probabilities against themselves?

Yes, and the publish datasets of all their work to let others analyze them too. They're the most accurate of all the major sites.

Here's their github site [1]. It contains tons of datasets, past performance, analysis tools, everything you want to actually check if your claims are true or false, and most importantly, how accurate 538 has been over time.

Now try to do that analysis on, say, Fox News :)

Good luck.

[1] https://github.com/fivethirtyeight

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#25

Post by ZeroGravitas »

meatsauce wrote: post #15
elikoga wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A minority did vote for trump though

President Trump won the popular vote in 30 of 50 states.

And 0 out of 1 countries.

Here's a map showing where all the votes were cast:

https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-popul...

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#26

Post by rgifford »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #12
Jonovono wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone paying attention was pretty certain Trump was going to win that. All you had to do was look at Trumps subreddit vs Hilarys. Look at Trumps rally turnouts. The energy behind Trump was insane and it seemed pretty clear something was going on in the media to make it sound like only a "minority" of people supported him. That's why I bet around $1000 with some coworkers he would win that were certain he was going t…

> The energy behind Trump was insane and it seemed pretty clear something was going on in the media to make it sound like only a "minority" of people supported him. Only a minority of people did. What’s wild about 2016 is that people seem to have bought into the narrative that because it was such an upset of the mainstream media’s expectations, that somehow that translated into an actual landslide. Trump didn’t win t…

Passion votes count the same, sure. But impassioned voters advocate for their candidates and get their friends to vote. Lesser of two evils voters don't really care like that.

It's the whole reason startups go for natural marketing. Users that naturally come upon and love your product will proselyte it more and better than anyone else.

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#27

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Jonovono wrote: post #17
wbsss4412 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The energy behind Trump was insane and it seemed pretty clear something was going on in the media to make it sound like only a "minority" of people supported him. Only a minority of people did. What’s wild about 2016 is that people seem to have bought into the narrative that because it was such an upset of the mainstream media’s expectations, that somehow that translated into an actual landslide. Trump didn’t win t…

I'm Canadian so I was pretty removed. All i'm saying is I wasn't surprised that Trump won. I was expecting that based off of my experience.

I wasn't surprised Trump won either, but then I followed 538's coverage closely which made clear that he wouldn't win the popular vote, but could well win the presidency.

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#28

Post by GameOfFrowns »

gorgonical wrote: post #8
egberts1 wrote: post #2

New York Times that predicted a 93% chance of a Clinton landslide in 2016. And the same 538 concurred with 87% chance of a Clinton win. And the very same 538 that claimed a “Comey Effect” that purportedly botched their deep analytical effort, posthumously. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslid...

Echoing a sibling comment, it seems strange it's so common that people look at probabilities like this and say that because the thing that happened was less likely that the model was wrong. They say explicitly how this works: they run simulations and count winners. That means among their simulations is very likely to be an instance that is similar to the real outcome.

>That means among their simulations is very likely to be an instance that is similar to the real outcome.

So what? If you only make enough enough predictions then some of those will turn out predict the future correctly. It is how "The Simpsons did it first" meme came into being.

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#29

Post by wbsss4412 »

rgifford wrote: post #26
wbsss4412 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The energy behind Trump was insane and it seemed pretty clear something was going on in the media to make it sound like only a "minority" of people supported him. Only a minority of people did. What’s wild about 2016 is that people seem to have bought into the narrative that because it was such an upset of the mainstream media’s expectations, that somehow that translated into an actual landslide. Trump didn’t win t…

Passion votes count the same, sure. But impassioned voters advocate for their candidates and get their friends to vote. Lesser of two evils voters don't really care like that. It's the whole reason startups go for natural marketing. Users that naturally come upon and love your product will proselyte it more and better than anyone else.

And yet the candidate with the more impassioned voters got significantly fewer votes in both 2016 and 2020.

Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast

#30

Post by wbsss4412 »

GameOfFrowns wrote: post #22
kadoban wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone paying attention was pretty certain Trump was going to win that. All you had to do was look at Trumps subreddit vs Hilarys. Look at Trumps rally turnouts. How'd that work out in 2020?

>How'd that work out in 2020? In 2020, obviously senile and charisma-void, candidate Joe Biden surprisingly manifested ~81 (Edit: actually 8) million more votes than the 'second-coming of Christ' Barack Obama before him, while speaking to low double-digit audiences at his rally stops. Really makes you think. Edit: in 2020 Biden received 81,284,000 votes , Trump 74,221,000 votes, while in 2008 Obama got 69,498,516 vot…

Either you’re missing a comma, or you are wildly miscounting the number of votes Biden received.
Post reply on HN