FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
projects.fivethirtyeight.com
FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#2New 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...
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#3New 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...
From the very first paragraph of your link.
> Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.
A) Their more advanced model gave Trump a 23% chance, the 13% chance you mention is their simpler model.
B) Things with a 23%, 13%, and 7% chance happen all the time
C) You often have a better understanding of events after they happen relative to before.
If you want to show a predictor is unreliable, you need to look at a bunch of their predictions and see how they perform in aggregate. While also considering how correlated the results are (and, if applicable, predicted to be)
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#4New 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...
From the very first paragraph of your link. > Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette. A) Their more advanced model gave Trump a 23% chance, the 13% chance you menti…
What more modeling does 538 need … to cover all their bases … and still miss the mark?
As far as I have read of their blogs, they’re par for the course.
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#5New 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...
I followed the 2016 election and 538 very closely. Over the last week or so before the election was called, 538 gave Clinton a 3 out of 5 (or 60%) chance of winning, dramatically lower than any other outlet anywhere, and 35% lower than the NYT prediction.
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#6New 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...
Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don’t know how one can look back and say trump wasn’t an underdog going into the election.
What exactly were they supposed to do? Ignore polls that show him behind and divine somehow that he was actually going to win based off of nothing?
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#7New 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...
Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don’t know how one can look back and say trump wasn’t an underdog going into the election. What exactly were they supposed to do? Ignore polls that show him behind and divine somehow that he was actually going to win based off of nothing?
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 to get destroyed.
Note: This isn't me saying I support or don't support Trump.
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#8New 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.
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don’t know how one can look back and say trump wasn’t an underdog going into the election. What exactly were they supposed to do? Ignore polls that show him behind and divine somehow that he was actually going to win based off of nothing?
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…
A minority did vote for trump though
Re: FiveThirtyEight 2022 Election Forecast
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the very first paragraph of your link. > Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette. A) Their more advanced model gave Trump a 23% chance, the 13% chance you menti…
What more modeling does 538 need … to cover all their bases … and still miss the mark? As far as I have read of their blogs, they’re par for the course.
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.