Quote (bogie160 @ Jun 30 2020 04:02pm)
There were some awful models that were done. FiveThirtyEight has his chances going in at 23%, which is something that happens all the time. The NYT and the usual culprits pushed out ridiculous 99%+ figures with promises of a landslide.
Yea, it's a bit complicated. The popular vote was dead nuts correct. Here is 538's model:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/I think the issue is the swing states, with Wisconsin being the biggest miss. However, 16% chance is still within the realm of possibilities. I remember that the "now-cast" for 538 shot up to 80% or something like that once we started getting data from Pennsylvania. People flipped the fuck out and called it a shit model but if Pennsylvania suburbs were leaning towards Trump...shouldn't it follow that the rest of the rust belt might be swinging that way as well? Turns out, they were absolutely correct.
Here are some other models:
NY Times - Hillary 85%, Trump 15%:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html. I love this little tidbit here:
Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.Huff Po: Hillary 98%
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/presidentDaily Kos: Hillary 92%
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/8/1593119/-Daily-Kos-Election-2016-forecast-The-final-version (I actually know Drew Linzer)
I don't know of any other models off the top of my head. I think people like to laugh at Huff Po because they also said they weren't covering Trump anymore during the GOP primary lmao.