Closer to 50/50. It was obvious to me a year ago he was going to win. Go watch some pre-election videos of literally any news channel talking about the "path to 270". There are some incredible delusions at play. They could not separate their own feelings and desires from the work.
This is nonsense. They ran a statistical model - their feelings have nothing to do with it. They never tampered with the model to favor a particular candidate. They barely change the model at all, just feed it with polling data.
Good job predicting the outcome of the election. But no way will you be able to do better than 538 in the long run.
Go watch some pre-election videos of literally any news channel talking about the "path to 270". There are some incredible delusions at play. They could not separate their own feelings and desires from the work.
I agree with this entirely (assuming you are talking generally, not about 538 specifically). There were people in the GJP Superforecasting project giving Clinton 98% chance of the win 2 months out, which in a 2-person race is just ridiculous (There were people giving Trump that as well, but a lot less of them).
How did you come to this 50/50 prediction though? I can't find the report now, but I believe that Trump data science team gave him a 35% chance of winning, and that was only in the last 10 days of the campaign (they gave him much less prior to that).
To go from the 28%/35% (538/Trump Team) range to 50% seems a pretty big jump.
I haven't done the maths, but to make it a 50/50 doesn't that mean polls in Michigan etc would have had to be around 10% incorrect (to give him sufficient margin to make it that sure)?
That seems a pretty big difference to what the error actually was.
