The presidential election isn't a toss-up
www.natesilver.net
As our model launches, either Biden or Trump could easily win — but the odds are in the ex-president’s favor.
  • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    It’s all statistics. It means that if we ran the 2024 election millions of times in his model, Trump would win more than Biden. But we will only get one shot, so the number is kind of useless.

    I was watching the Mets game this weekend on ESPN, and they were ahead of the Cubs by a few runs. ESPN has a tracker that estimates “Win Probability” and their model gave the Mets a 75% chance to win. But have you seen the Mets this year? They’ve blown a bunch of games late. Every Mets fan watching knew that their bullpen wasn’t good enough to merit that rating.

    The Mets did end up winning that game. (Thanks, Grimace.) But that doesn’t change the fact that no matter what math is behind their win prediction model, it just doesn’t feel right to apply statistics like that to one-off events.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    0·
    5 months ago

    In 2022, Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg flatly asserted that there would be no “red wave” and the Dems would overperform expectations.

    Nate Silver said the only way Rosenberg could come to that conclusion was that he’d been ingesting “hopium.”

    Rosenberg was right. Silver was wrong (though he’ll die before admitting it).

    Then Rosenberg started The Hopium Chronicles, which I suggest you read

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      0·
      5 months ago

      Party strategists always say their party is going to do well. It’s part of their job. I don’t think this is particularly meaningful, unless you think there’s some particular methodology he has access to that’s better than Silver’s.