• moon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    3 months ago

    He predicted a Hillary blowout in 2016 and was one of the many reasons why people on the left underestimated Trump. I don’t want to hear this man’s name again.

    • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Did he? My recollection is that he gave her a 70% chance of winning, which is not at all the same as predicting that she will win.

        • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          And at the time he went out of his way to emphasize that, when something has a roughly 1/3 chance of occurring, not only is it possible, but you actually expect it to happen in 1 of 3 times. His prediction was the main reason that I was not feeling comfortable about Hillary just winning.

      • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think Nate made a good point about people not understanding polls. 70% chance to win means Hillary would have won 70/100 elections, not win by 70-30. But many read 70% as some kind of guarantee.

    • smayonak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      There was a massive voter suppression campaign in 2016. Specifically there were roll purges in many of the swing states. Trump’s team has inserted MAGA cultists at all levels in Georgia. They’re trying to do the same throughout the rest of the swing states.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think the messaging around polling in general is lost on most of the population and lots of people confuse the chance of winning with a prediction of the voting outcomes. This article is approximately 8 years old now and aged like milk, but comparing the odds Trump had of losing a game of russian roulette is very apt. With the benefit of hindsight, more emphasis should have been put into driving comparison home. I think that every poll should include this metric instead of trump’s chance of winning.