[jerf]

On the other hand, this makes the whole operation unfalsifiable in any reasonable time frame. "I always said the candidate had a .1% chance of winning!"

Given two major elections in a row where the results were essentially out of the error bars, it is perfectly reasonable to be dropping your confidence on pollsters very hard. Once was perhaps understandable, but twice is getting into "right .01% of the time" territory.

[johnnyg]

I hadn't considered the "unfalsifiable" aspect of my comment. I think you make a good point.

At a poker table you get a high number of events to check against but a presidential election is only once every 4 years.

I wonder how accurate the local elections are vs the national? If neither is accurate, then that's a strong case for your point of view and a change in methodology.

[cwkoss]

> On the other hand, this makes the whole operation unfalsifiable in any reasonable time frame. "I always said the candidate had a .1% chance of winning!"

I wonder how many people still think Nate Silver has a credible perspective: he's spun the above strategy into a job in unscientific punditry.