• WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            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
              2
              ·
              16 days ago

              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
                14 days ago

                “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’.

              • WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                16 days ago

                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
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  16 days ago

                  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?

                  • WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    16 days ago

                    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.