PEC (Sam Wang) predicts virtual 0% Trump win (look at probability bell curve)

[triron]

https://election.princeton.edu/

Also another reason I am convinced vote tallies were somehow corrupted in 2016.
He predicted Hillary had 99.9% chance of winning day before election.

[Inablueway]

1. Don't trust this guy

Especially after his 2016 prediction. I’ll stick with Nate Silver.

[ret5hd]

3. So your contention is the 2016 vote tallies were NOT corrupted?

[Loki Liesmith]

8. They were not

[TwilightZone]

2. 99.9% wasn't realistic, so I wouldn't take his current prediction seriously, either.

538 had it at about 70/30. Biden has a massive lead, and they currently have him at about 78/22. Nothing is absolute.

Considering the electoral college, predicting anything at 100% shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental process by which our system works.

[triron]

5. Sam Wang isn't very bright? How about his credentials?

https://scholar.princeton.edu/wanglab/about

You don't think he understands how our system works. Really?

[TwilightZone]

7. He clearly doesn't if he thinks that either 2016 or 2020 were/are 100%

Particularly 2016. Declaring it 100% is so ridiculous that it's laughable.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. +1

Agreed totally.

[Loki Liesmith]

9. Nate's a little too cautious but Wang errs in the opposite direction

[Awsi Dooger]

4. Not a fan of Sam Wang

He doesn't understand that state polls are junior varsity polls, and he doesn't understand the future book aspect...so many unknowns so far removed.

That's why nothing can be 99.9%, or anything close to that.

Stick to Nate Silver indeed. I remember Nate had a drunken twitter rant against Wang in 2016 based on the same flaws