• FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Take polling data then randomly roll for some error within the margin of error for each state. Then adjust based on bias. Do this n times and get your prediction.

    • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Is there a point to this? From the tweet it doesn’t give new information. It just reaffirms that three contest will be close which everyone knew.

      • Hexboare [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Yes, it’s possible that despite close in polls, the margin of error would favour one candidate being more likely to win.

        “Everyone knows” something until there’s evidence to the contrary.

        The polls and outcome could still be wrong if something unexpected happens, like if all the people who don’t usually vote decide this is the most important election and vote for the first and only time in their life.

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        14 hours ago

        They didn’t get a certain answer so it was useless this time, but if it had turned out that somehow one candidate won a supermajority of simulations then you got useful information. Can’t know unless you ask.

      • Eris235 [undecided]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        14 hours ago

        There is utility in some cases; there’s correlations between polling and areas, and the electoral college makes it all complicated (by design)

        But, like, here? No, no practical difference between any of the ‘models’ all showing some variation of ‘its a toss up’