Did 538 predict Hillary would lose Colorado or Oklahoma or Minnesota or Nebraska or Kansas or Maine?

[Attorney in Texas]

Just asking about these 538 forecast models I keep hearing so much about.

Did 538 predict Trump would lose Alaska or Iowa or Kansas or Maine or Oklahoma?

How many forecasts is 538 allowed to get wrong in a 100-day period before people stop referring to 538 as "unerringly accurate"?

Does 538 deserve credit when they predict a race correctly but blow the margin of victory by a mile?

How many times can 538 make predictions that favor Clinton and yet remain silent in races that favor Sanders before it looks like a pattern?

I like 538 more than almost anyone (I read it Monday through Friday and on weekend days with debates or elections), but this idea that 538's "stunningly inaccurate 2016 forecasts" can take the place of real votes has got to stop.

[Csainvestor]

1. They predicted bernie would lose every single state

Same goes for trump

[itsrobert]

2. yes

thanks

[Attorney in Texas]

5. It shows up a little differently on my computer:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/oklahoma-democratic/

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/oklahoma-republican/

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/kansas-republican/

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

[itsrobert]

6. ok

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/oklahoma-democratic/#polls-only

[Attorney in Texas]

8. Are you arguing that 538 is flawless because they predict both possible outcomes and one is right?

[itsrobert]

10. Both are within the margin of error

Correct?

[Attorney in Texas]

14. Polls have margins of error. Predictions do not. So does 538 get credit for a "win" when it predicts

Sanders will win and also predicts Clinton will win.

What does that trophy look like?

[LAS14]

15. How did you find those pages?

I went to 538, trying to find historical data like this, but couldn't. Could you give me a little script?

[LAS14]

17. This is what I get when I first open...

... 538. (Addition to my original question in response to you.)

[Attorney in Texas]

18. Click on "Primary Forecasts" and scroll to the result you want (past races are at the bottom)

[kgnu_fan]

3. Wondering if Bernie's campaign is so non-traditional, they can not catch the data?

Nate Silver used to be diligently close to the data but right now he and his team are totally off the course. I wonder what tripped them. Any thoughts?

[stillwaiting]

7. His objective might be a little different now.

The pay is great I hear.

[kgnu_fan]

11. Are they manipulating data? Or they don't have correct data?

[stillwaiting]

12. They seem to be attempting to control the narrative more these days.

They don't appear to be trying to remain objective and unbiased. Far from it to my mind.

Polling in general is so ridiculous now though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. It is not just tehm, starting in 2000

exit polls are now suspect, and some polls are on the nose, others not so much

[noamnety]

9. There are some threads on DU with some wildly wrong predictions.

There are earlier predictions saying the only state Sanders can win is Vermont. Someone took the time to carefully color in their prediction map showing him winning only Vermont and New Hampshire (as recent as Feb 28). Another on Feb 29 saying it will all be over on March 1st because by then every state he had any chance of winning will have voted, and he will have only won a total of two states, maybe 4 at most. There are posts saying Hillary will win everything but Vermont on Super Tuesday.

Maybe they are basing it just on wishful thinking. But if it's based on the polls they are reading, at some point they might have to admit to themselves the polls are skewed.

[jeff47]

13. Their innovation is to never actually make a prediction.

For example, they'll say "there's a 90% chance Clinton will win _____". If Sanders wins, they hide behind that 10%.

To all but the most pedantic, it's obvious they were making a hard prediction. And even their 51-49 predictions are treated by the media as a hard prediction. But they can claim to never be wrong.

It's a fantastic business model.

[BernieforPres2016]

16. They do the same thing in sports

They always rationalize what happened after the fact to explain why they weren't really wrong. They pretend that there's a level of precision to their forecasting that does not exist.

If their sports models were really so good and they were the geniuses they pretend they are, they would keep them to themselves and wipe out the Las Vegas sports books.