Legatus zei:
Misschien effectief lezen wat de man zegt?
In addition to the enormous polling error, I did not correctly estimate the size of the correlated error – by a factor of five. As I wrote before, that five-fold difference accounted for the difference between the 99% probability here and the lower probabilities at other sites. We all estimated the Clinton win at being probable, but I was most extreme. It goes to show that even if the estimation problem is reduced to one parameter, it’s still essential to do a good job with that one parameter. Polls failed, and I amplified that failure.
of
Is 99% a reasonable probability?
November 6th, 2016, 11:31pm by Sam Wang
Three sets of data point in the same direction:
The state poll-based Meta-Margin is Clinton +2.6%.
National polls give a median of Clinton +3.0 +/- 0.9% (10 polls with a start date of November 1st or later).
Early voting patterns approximately match 2012, a year when the popular vote was Obama +3.9%.
Based on this evidence, if Hillary Clinton does not win on Tuesday it will be a giant surprise.
There’s been buzz about the Princeton Election Consortium’s win probability for Clinton, which for some time has been in the 98-99% range. Tonight let me walk everyone through how we arrive at this level of confidence. tl;dr: With a more conservative assumption (see discussion) the PEC approach gives a probability of more like 95%. [Read more →]
Zover ik zie is liegen die er het dichtste bijzat qua kans dat trump won: 538 & nate silver. Die stonden op een 30% kans dat trump won, voor zover ik de rest zie stonden die op 1-15% kans.
