Thanks for asking. Lots got closer - 538 for example was closer by 20 EC votes : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/Which poll predicted the electoral college better?
unless you can point to who did convincingly better ... your argument falls flat.
So 538 was 5% closer ... but still 50% off the mark.Thanks for asking. Lots got closer - 538 for example was closer by 20 EC votes : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/.
And now we've seen it doesn't. I wonder what excuse is next on the list.
So 538 was 5% closer
50% off is closer than dead-on?Yep, more accurate than the source you claimed was the "single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election, almost dead-on".
Actually, they were off by about 30% - 29.36%, to be exact. Rasmussen was off by 40.7%.So 538 was 5% closer ... but still 50% off the mark.
I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was not dead-on and that fivethirtyeight was 5% (actually 10%) more accurate?50% off is closer than dead-on?
Strange statistics.
I'm always impressed by how someone can continue to both get the math so wrong and try to lecture others on how to read polls.Actually, they were off by about 30% - 29.36%, to be exact. Rasmussen was off by 40.7%.
Which of those numbers is closer to 0%?
I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was not dead-on and that fivethirtyeight was 5% (actually 10%) more accurate?
I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was the single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election.I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was not dead-on and that fivethirtyeight was 5% (actually 10%) more accurate?
I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was the single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election.
538 was 5% closer
No, you claimed that. You have yet to establish it. So far, the evidence says otherwise:I thought we'd already established that Rasmussen was the single most accurate poll of the 2016 presidential election.
Of course, you knew this already.
And you appear to agree:
So 538 was 5% closer ... but still 50% off the mark.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.I'm always impressed by how someone can continue to both get the math so wrong and try to lecture others on how to read polls.
No, you claimed that. You have yet to establish it. So far, the evidence says otherwise:
And you appear to agree:
We have? I don't recall participating in any discussion of Rasmussen before, and despite your many claims of its accuracy all over the forums, I've yet to see any evidence of said accuracy. If I've missed it, could you please re-post?
We've been through this about a dozen times already, so I find your disingenuous denial amusing.
Nope.We have? I don't recall participating in any discussion of Rasmussen before, and despite your mainy claims of its accuracy all over the forums, I've yet to see any evidence of said accuracy. If I've missed it, could you please re-post?
We've been through this about a dozen times already, so I find your disingenuous denial amusing.
Goalposts were never changed.Right. We've been through this.
You make the claim.
You're shown that your claim is false.
You change the goal posts, and your claim doesn't even meet your new standard set.
You are shown again that your claim is incorrect.
You repeat the initial claim as if this other discussion about your original claim was people saying "Gee, you're right" when they were actually saying "This is why your claim is false"
And i'm sure we'll go through this again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?