this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
38 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10267 readers
124 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I did not trust 538 before. I think a few major US election voter turnouts suffered because too many people thought the 538 results meant that their candidate was a sure thing.
Based on the article, it looks like this change would make that a lot worse, since the main point of contention between Silver and the new guy seems to be that the new guy's models are a lot more certain of the results too early. So candidates are going to look like the sure thing far more now most likely.
That's not good. Specifically, I believe Trump beat Clinton because of 538.
Weird take.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
538 was one of the few groups saying that Trump had a decent chance. They were widely mocked for it. Anybody who believed 538 should have been motivated to get out the vote for Clinton.
And they turned out to be right.
How is that "Trump beat Clinton because of 538"?
Maybe I misremembered 538 for another popular poll at the time.