You obviously aren't. Your response was idiotic. You act as if since there was data and since he used it, somehow that means by default that his model must have been as optimal as could be. Yet Nate throws in **** that he has no proof even furthers predictive power.
You obviously aren't. Your response was idiotic. You act as if since there was data and since he used it, somehow that means by default that his model must have been as optimal as could be. Yet Nate throws in **** that he has no proof even furthers predictive power.
No, it's pretty obvious that you're:
1. assuming a stat model is "wrong" because it attributed greater likelihood to a result that didn't happen
2. conflating input/output with whatever "optimality" of the model itself
3. making all sorts of proclamations about modeling based on zero mathematics or science
Unfortunately you'll never understand basic stats or much else well enough to grasp why these are significant.
What exactly is this referencing?
"Model results are based on available data; you're stupidly conflating that with the model."
So tell me how you know his model has strong predictive power. It isn't even transparent. We just see the garbage it throws out.
LOL Not this crap again, You haven't backed up your BS with one iota of stats.
Your insistence that a stat model is wrong because didn't predict the right eventuality.
His model seems largely sound based on best practices. Of course you have no way of knowing this.
It's a foregone conclusion the compatibility of your mind with statistical math.
BS Here, I'll just let an actual stat professor take it from here. lmao
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ll-over-the-place_us_582238dce4b0d9ce6fbf69b6
[QUOTE="Maxima1, post: 38908298, member: 321295]
Yeah, how many eyerolls did you have over polls-plus, fanboy? lol
You're the one who acts as if there's something special about one of them and vehemently defends the 538 model despite him getting several things completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
You're projecting. I am perfectly fine with accepting the results of whatever model was best. In this case it was 538. Wang's model was probably the worst performing of the major quantitative models. This is just a fact.
I always find it interesting when liberal people on here who regularly (and correctly) attack conservatives for ignoring objective reality do the same thing when the facts go the other way. Wang had a bad model. Silver had a better model. If that changes next election that's fine by me. I don't understand why it's not fine by you.
Yeah, how many eyerolls did you have over polls-plus, fanboy? lol
You're the one who acts as if there's something special about one of them and vehemently defends the 538 model despite him getting several things completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
You're projecting. I am perfectly fine with accepting the results of whatever model was best. In this case it was 538. Wang's model was probably the worst performing of the major quantitative models. This is just a fact.
I always find it interesting when liberal people on here who regularly (and correctly) attack conservatives for ignoring objective reality do the same thing when the facts go the other way. Wang had a bad model. Silver had a better model. If that changes next election that's fine by me. I don't understand why it's not fine by you.
Did you seriously just link an editorial that claimed his model overestimated the odds of a Trump victory?
Lol
It did. It was the one model that was giving Trump high odds, yet Trump only won because of the BS October surprise at the end. It funny how you think the model is so much better, yet that would have all changed if only Weiner wasn't a creep.
Appears basic logic isn't your thing either. The prof here is criticizing Nate here largely for elements that made his results more favorable to trump. Since you're much too dumb to grasp what that implies, "correcting" them would only make the "model" worse by your own dumbshit standards. I'd ask you to ponder this for a while, but we both know that's an exercise in futility.
Just a heads up we already know just how dumb you are even without criticizing 538 or who knows what for an inability to predict unforeseeable future events.
Man, you are stupid. Nate didn't predict it either, so shut up. It had squat to do with his model.
Good grief. Discussions with you are always a joke.
I'm curious if you can point to any semi-intelligent post you've ever understood.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter