• Wren@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      7 个月前

      Oh I understand it just fine. Fine enough not to rely on polling to indicate anything. 538 isn’t accurate. Why is that up for debate?

      Odds can’t be wrong?

      • TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 个月前

        If I told you that you had a five in six chance to roll the dice and not roll a one, and then you rolled the dice and got a one, was what I told you wrong?

        • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 个月前

          “wrong” is a subjective call dependent on the intelligence of the observer. To some other people the answer isnt ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ its ‘I love my pickup’ or ‘boobs!’ or ‘me no like polls, they say me losing’.

        • Wren@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          7 个月前

          Their odds predicted the past two elections wrong. What part of this is not getting through?

          There wasn’t a five in six chance for the candidates during either of the previous two elections. So I’m ignoring your example.

          They were wrong. Twice. Enough said.

          • TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            7 个月前

            Here is a direct quote from 538:

            538’s forecast is based on a combination of polls and campaign “fundamentals,” such as economic conditions, state partisanship and incumbency. It’s not meant to “call” a winner, but rather to give you a sense of how likely each candidate is to win. Check out our methodology to learn exactly how we calculate these probabilities.

            Source

            In 2016 they gave Hillary Clinton a 71.4 % chance of winning, and in 2020 they gave Joe Biden 89 % chance of winning. They are dealing in odds, not calls.

            And even if it isn’t getting through to you, how were they wrong in 2020?

            • Wren@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              7 个月前

              So based on their record over the past two years, it’s safe to say that whoever they assume to have the best odds of winning- it’s still going to be a whoever wins, wins.

              My point is… they’re not accurate.

                • Wren@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 个月前

                  Voting is the only accurate means to determine a president. This bullshit with odds and predictions muddies the water.