2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumToo good to be true?
The statistician from "none of the above" blog, Prof. Hubbard disagrees with Nate Silver, and is not shy about sharing his opinion.
If I had some small disagreement with Silver's numbers, I might send him snide messages on Twitter, which he would likely ignore. The thing is, my numbers don't say a small difference. He said Trump was leading early this week and after the convention he now says it's 51%-49% for Clinton.
To repeat, I don't call my numbers a prediction, just a snapshot of what polls say now.
The snapshot says 99% to 1% for Clinton.
Let me quote Glengarry Glen Ross.
"You think I am fucking with you? I am not fucking with you."
http://abovenota.blogspot.com/2016/07/clinton-vs-trump-31-july-2016-100-days.html
It is 100 days from the elections and anything is possible in an infinite universe - and I like hearing things I want to be true as much as the next person - so I am pinching salt all over this article.
But I'd be lying if I said it didn't cheer me right up.
unblock
(51,973 posts)on the other hand, i agree that the chance of a democratic win this cycle seems noticeably stronger than it has been for other recent cycles.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... now the polling weight would have more parameters added to it by now