The Demise of Polls

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

O c----

- Doc

[Xenophon]

Xeno -

I’m thinking along the lines of margin of error. 538 seemed overly optimistic for my jaded senses when Nate was on an interview with Rick Wilson and Molly Jong-Fast on the New Abnormal podcast last week. This looks like much more of a squeaker than predicted and runs to the margins of ‘margin of error’. : ) But I haven’t taken a deep dive into their analysis; I’m just going off of his conversation. It may be that 538 ends up looking better than that sounded.

ETA: sorry, Xeno - it was an Ezra Klein podcast. Not enough sleep these busy days, lol.

That is fair enough. I'd say that unfortunately all the modeling still requires good polling and we will forever be subject to this. I had hoped for 2016 to provide some course correction but that doesn't seem to have worked. Nate himself can be fairly dramatic and straight forward so I don't doubt if personally he sounded a little bullish on Biden (his personal politic leanings probably don't help with that). Fortunately results look like they will fall within the fat end of the distribution, which is what you are going for.

[subgenius]

D O c----

- Doc

F.I.F.Y.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

In case anyone doesn’t know this, Google has a nifty little tracker here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=current ... e&ie=UTF-8

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

In case anyone doesn’t know this, Google has a nifty little tracker here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=current ... e&ie=UTF-8

- Doc

That map shows the AP having called Arizona for Biden. I don't think it has. FYI, I'm using the Post's tracker, which is based on AP. https://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload= ... 4514515426

ETA: And using the 538 blog for updates. https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2 ... -coverage/