Party strategists always say their party is going to do well. It’s part of their job. I don’t think this is particularly meaningful, unless you think there’s some particular methodology he has access to that’s better than Silver’s.
This is a perfectly succinct, textbook example of Outcome Bias.
Betting $1 with a 1 in 3 chance to win $2 is objectively a bad idea; the odds are against you. It doesn’t stop being a bad idea if you win the $2 after 1 bet.
In one single election, yes. It means nothing, especially when you understand that his job is not to generate an accurate prediction, it’s to energize core supporters into donating to the campaign.
By the way, you can make the same argument in reverse—Trump always overperforms his polling right? If that prediction is accurate then Biden is absolutely going to get trounced. Now I don’t necessarily think this is correct, but it’s a slightly more sophisticated version of the fallacy you are falling prey to here.
In 2022, Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg flatly asserted that there would be no “red wave” and the Dems would overperform expectations.
Nate Silver said the only way Rosenberg could come to that conclusion was that he’d been ingesting “hopium.”
Rosenberg was right. Silver was wrong (though he’ll die before admitting it).
Then Rosenberg started The Hopium Chronicles, which I suggest you read
Dem strategists are either stupid or malicious.
Il est la: hopiumchronicles
Merci buttercups.
One egg is enough
Party strategists always say their party is going to do well. It’s part of their job. I don’t think this is particularly meaningful, unless you think there’s some particular methodology he has access to that’s better than Silver’s.
His methodology was better since he was right and Silver was wrong.
This is a perfectly succinct, textbook example of Outcome Bias.
Betting $1 with a 1 in 3 chance to win $2 is objectively a bad idea; the odds are against you. It doesn’t stop being a bad idea if you win the $2 after 1 bet.
Nothing like one person being right and another being wrong in bringing the amateur philosophers out.
Tell me you don’t understand directionally or literal numbers without telling me…
Tell me you don’t know simple English without telling me…
Lol no that’s not how any of this works. If I flip a coin and correctly pick the outcome in 2024 will you start paying me to forecast elections?
Not how it works? That’s exactly how it worked.
In one single election, yes. It means nothing, especially when you understand that his job is not to generate an accurate prediction, it’s to energize core supporters into donating to the campaign.
By the way, you can make the same argument in reverse—Trump always overperforms his polling right? If that prediction is accurate then Biden is absolutely going to get trounced. Now I don’t necessarily think this is correct, but it’s a slightly more sophisticated version of the fallacy you are falling prey to here.