Read on Twitter
Now for some poli-sci victory laps.
The & #39;citizen forecast& #39;, the favourite model of all quacks based on asking people "who do you think is going to win?", had Trump winning 334 Electoral college votes.
The & #39;citizen forecast& #39;, the favourite model of all quacks based on asking people "who do you think is going to win?", had Trump winning 334 Electoral college votes.
Helmuth Norpoth& #39;s primary model, the favourite of all bad-faith partisan journalists with too much time on their hands, which is based on performance in early primaries, had Trump with 91% chances of winning the election.
The IFAAR-University of Neuchatel& #39;s internet search model: also wrong. Also quackery.
Trafalgar Group& #39;s adjustment for "shy Trump voters" - basically adding 6 points to Trump - was also quackery. Colour me shocked.
Bela Stantic& #39;s media sentiment analysis: interesting, but nothing to do with forecasting. Quackery. Wrong. Bye.
The Democracy Institute, which had Trump ahead in the popular vote thanks to (1) low-turnout assumption, and (2) accounting for 5-6% of shy Trump voters is probably going to end up 7 points off on the national popular vote. Quackery. Never listen to them again.
