If I told you that you had a five in six chance to roll the dice and not roll a one, and then you rolled the dice and got a one, was what I told you wrong?
538’s forecast is based on a combination of polls and campaign “fundamentals,” such as economic conditions, state partisanship and incumbency. It’s not meant to “call” a winner, but rather to give you a sense of how likely each candidate is to win. Check out our methodology to learn exactly how we calculate these probabilities.
So based on their record over the past two years, it’s safe to say that whoever they assume to have the best odds of winning- it’s still going to be a whoever wins, wins.
They don’t call elections. They tell you the odds.
Aaaaand… weren’t they wrong the past two elections?
Someone doesn’t understand probability.
Oh I understand it just fine. Fine enough not to rely on polling to indicate anything. 538 isn’t accurate. Why is that up for debate?
Odds can’t be wrong?
If I told you that you had a five in six chance to roll the dice and not roll a one, and then you rolled the dice and got a one, was what I told you wrong?
Their odds predicted the past two elections wrong. What part of this is not getting through?
There wasn’t a five in six chance for the candidates during either of the previous two elections. So I’m ignoring your example.
They were wrong. Twice. Enough said.
Here is a direct quote from 538:
Source
In 2016 they gave Hillary Clinton a 71.4 % chance of winning, and in 2020 they gave Joe Biden 89 % chance of winning. They are dealing in odds, not calls.
And even if it isn’t getting through to you, how were they wrong in 2020?
So based on their record over the past two years, it’s safe to say that whoever they assume to have the best odds of winning- it’s still going to be a whoever wins, wins.
My point is… they’re not accurate.
What would accurate odds in the previous two presidential elections look like to you?