@elspeth Not even just selection bias. He predicted Gore would win in 2000 and Trump would win 2016. Either he's predicting electoral college or popular vote, and either way he missed one of those two.
I'd be interested in the related question "how many states does 538 miss?". As I recall, in 2016, their model output included a prediction of number of missed states -- i'd be interested to see if the community thinks that the model's predictions of its own mistakes were approximately correct.
Recall campaign claims to have gathered 1,825,000 signatures as of this morning.
Based on an 82.1% validity rate, that would be sufficient for the recall to happen.
— edited by cd
I think >60% is overconfident.
Yang has a lead in head-to-head polls. But this is a ranked choice election. A 25-15 (what it seems to be?) lead in polls is just not that hard to overcome with peoples second and third choice picks.
I don't think it would be shocking if Yang won. I just don't think it would be shocking if he lost either. I'm sceptical of people putting down 70+%. I doubt the polls are really high-quality enough to get us there in this setting, and I don't see anyone citing other reasons.
@eibbett I think you're right.
But it does make it hard to argue that Yang is out of touch if he had the 'most correct' answer. As this was one (large) piece of opposition case against Yang, it may be useful for him to advertise.
This... represents a lower bound. If all the vaccines they are counting qualify, then March 20th (or April 3rd with a uniform 2-week lag) would be the earliest date this could resolve positive.
Wow, I've never had so much trouble coming up with a reasonable point estimate.
I refuse to bet on this and related scenarios.
Personally, I feel that in-depth gaming out of these situations normalizes them and brings them way too far into the overton window for my preferences. Self-fulfilling prophecies are real, and as it is said, we must snip "the threads of destiny one by one".
There is of course value in the forecasts and discussion -- and I certainly don't intend to disparage or discourage others. I merely intend that forecasters know of another filter (of many) in who participates.
Nate Silver says 10%. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1308…
updating upwards. ongoing silence from nyt staff is not a good indicator.
@Pablo Personally I thought that for questions without much participation, (1) was an active choice to incentivize participation.
@kievalet I think you're fairly spot on.
except that the CDC numbers have a 5 day lag before they stop being updated.
So that by the time the CDC number reads "82.5 million", the actual date of completion will have been several days earlier.
ETA: the posted Question is very specific about resolution at 82.5 million, not 85 million (the number you discuss)
Edit 2: Current number on CDC site is 82.47 million.
— edited by cd