Why Nate Silver and Sam Wang Are Wrong(quantamagazine.org)

22 pointsby nature2410 anni fa0 comments

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161108-why-nate-silver-and-sam-wang-are-wrong/

3 comments

This is a click-bait headline, as the conclusion of the article is "we'll compare the two prediction methods tomorrow and find out which has done better".

I'll go so far to say that the article itself is lacking content, and does little more to say that two popular models don't agree on percentage probabilities, even though they both agree who has the advantage. Apparently that they both agree on Clinton having an advantage is not sufficient for the author.

mankyd10 anni fa

This doesn't really answer the question of why Silver is wrong. It calls out Wang as being too "tight" in his interpretation of the numbers. It then simply claims the Silver is too far in the other direction, but with no substance to the claim.

basch10 anni fa

The PEC final total is 323:215, not 307. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/08/final-mode-projecti...

PEC and DailyKos have converged today on P 323D:215R, S 51D:49R, H=R as their predictions.