Ok so this is weird revisionism, because I remember 538 was the least bullish on Clinton the entire time. The pre election podcast had her odds at 70% or something, which was way better than NYT, etc.

Not to say Nate was "right" about 2016, but compared to other outlets, his actually was closer to the statistical average.

The 93% might have been one of the forecast models, but the day of the election it was only 71.

He still sucks, but he was actually better than other pundits in 2016. They actually got tons of shit from libs because they couldn't comprehend that Trump had 1/3 odds

[–] HumanBehaviorByBjork@hexbear.net 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

this is also my recollection. i was checking that shit weekly. i didn't want hillary to win, but her losing to such an obviously awful candidate seemed so unbelievable that the odds they were giving were incomprehensible to me.

[–] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 11 points 6 months ago

and even if it said 99% that doesn't necessarily mean the model was wrong. Sometimes you roll a 1 but the odds of rolling not-1 are still 95% or 83⅓% or whatever

fuck nate but also most of us, including me, don't have math expertise

[–] FourteenEyes@hexbear.net 38 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And I believed it because the Adults In The Room knew What They Were Doing.

8 years later I'm a rabid communist who counts down the hours until the West collapses

[–] SaniFlush@hexbear.net 29 points 6 months ago

We've been waiting for nearly a century now