|
|
|
|
|
|
by alva
3505 days ago
|
|
|
Just like they predicted Trump's chance of winning the primary as 2%. Hilarious defence of their work in recent tweet "Clinton came within 2 points of 307 electoral votes, in which case polls would have been right in 49 of 50 states. " ie. If the results had been different, our prediction would have been correct. |
|
|
First, that comment is about the polls, not their model.
Second, it's called a polling error. It's actually a thing.
This election happened to be extremely sensitive to polling errors due to the nature of the electoral college and the fact that a number of key races were extremely tight.
When an average poll has a 3% margin of error, and you factor in state-level correlations (and the fact that the state level polls tend to have more variable quality than national polls), a slight error results in a huge swing.
Which is the entire point they're making, if you're willing to set aside the snark and read what they wrote (since it's actually, you know, interesting and informative).