Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
That's interesting, because that non-correlation of polling errors is exactly why places like HuffPost Pollster were predicting a 99% chance of a Clinton win, with the head of HPP even writing a take-down of 538's model as a result, just days before their 99% prediction got destroyed.
It seems like following that, any predictors not accounting for that should have a very good reason why they aren't, rather than this simply being the standard way of doing things. That said, I agree that there's a lot about Bitecofer's argument that makes sense to me, and I'd be really interested to see what her model, adjusted for correlated polling errors, looks like.
|
Did their 99% prediction get 'destroyed' though? That still leaves a 1% chance. Just because we have the unfortunate luck to live in the universe where the 1% chance came through, doesn't mean the 99% prediction was wrong.