Thursday, November 10, 2016

From Vox: Few predicted Trump had a good shot of winning. But political science models did.

Not everyone got the election wrong. Forecasts based on fundamentals were more accurate than those based on polls - which were actually accurate, as we'll see in other posts. 

- Click here for the article.

Why did so few people see Donald Trump’s win coming?
The polls got it wrong. The major election forecasting models got it wrong (though FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver deserved credit for being significantly less certain about it). The political professionals got it wrong. The pundits got it oh, so very wrong indeed.
Oddly enough, though, there were signs pointing to the fact that Trump had a better chance than people were giving him, and they were lurking in plain sight.
They were in well-known political science research on “fundamental-based” factors that has long been used to explain presidential elections.
In fact, of the major political science models that try to explain presidential elections, three predicted Trump would win and three others predicted only a very narrow Clinton victory.

No comments:

Post a Comment