On 538 they also talked a lot about political theory during the elections. The "economic model" of the election says that the candidates do not matter, that what matters is the economic state of the country and variables such as the presence of an incumbent.
Most people at 538 seemed to think that this theory would be invalidated after the pretty probablye Clinton win, but was a reason for them to consider the uncertainty high.
I think tomorrow they are going to discuss if this theory is not vindicated after all.
To again be fair to 538, they are pretty clear that their model is based on polling data, at least in their "polls only" model, which I think they put more emphasis on than their "polls plus" model. Maybe next cycle, they'll do more work on that plus model to account for more factors or maybe this truly was an outlier election, which happens every so often.
This is also what 1 in 6 looks like, or what 1 in 10 looks like, or what 1 in 100 looks like. You can't definitively judge probabilistic predictions based on just 1 event.
> You can't definitively judge probabilistic predictions based on just 1 event.
Well, unfortunately, we have 4 years to think about it.
My wife and I are already looking at immigrating. I'm actively sending resumes to other places. If I can't fix it, then I'll leave it to those that want it this way.
(I guess this is what it felt like when the regular Germans had Hitler voted into power?)
Not that I'm claiming Trump _is_ Hitler, but the point is he's a wildcard – nobody seems to know what he _actually_ stands for. He says one thing to one crowd, and then the next day, spews the exact opposite to a different crowd.
Most people at 538 seemed to think that this theory would be invalidated after the pretty probablye Clinton win, but was a reason for them to consider the uncertainty high.
I think tomorrow they are going to discuss if this theory is not vindicated after all.