Yes, I have. I have even explained thr contradiction.
> You just said you like 538.
Not in this subthread.
> Their "lots of election events" are not different samples of a single variable -- they're different variables with different methodologies.
No, its lots of events with the same methodology (within an election cycle, within any class of election events.)
Now, in principal the Presidential general election prediction is a unique (per cycle) event, but the rules for assigning electoral votes based on lower-level electoral results are known in advance, and the national Presidential election is (equivalent to) a mechanical composite of the state level predictions via a model accounting for their degree of interdependence; both the state level prediction and the degree of independence of their variation are testable, and the model does not purport to predict variations due to faithless electors or interventions to assign electors other than by the state election rules in place prior to the state elections.
EDIT: Actually, there’s lots of predictions to evaluate even for the overall Presidential prediction, because there is a new predictiom every time they update based on new polling data, and you can evaluate the accuracy of the model using all of those predictions, not just the final one.
> > You haven't contradicted anything.
Yes, I have. I have even explained the contradiction.
Let's dissect this:
> No, its lots of events with the same methodology (within an election cycle, within any class of election events.)
So if that were accurate, it would require that he have an algorithm which is exactly the same from election to election, and requires no human tweaking for each one. Is that the case? Does his methodology never change, which would require that the inputs are always done the same way, too?
I think you see the problem here. The "inputs" are the polls which get done mostly by third-party polling firms, using methods that are always evolving.
Secondly, I don't believe 538 has an algorithm that's free of human intervention and never changes. What that means is, each election is a unique event.
Even if each election cycle was a unique event because of model tweaks between cycles, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of events and several orders of magnitude more of predictions at different times in each cycle.
No, there are not "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of events and several orders of magnitude"
There is one event. The US House, Senate, and state elections have completely different methodologies and no bearing on the Presidential election, which is enormously complicated by the Electoral College.
> The US House, Senate, and state elections have completely different methodologies
No, they don’t.
> and no bearing on the Presidential election
Even when considering the Presidential general election in isolation, there are currently 56 (51 statewide, including D.C., plus by-district elections for 2 electors in Maine and 3 in Nebraska) elections of presidential electors, which not only “have a bearing on” but strictly determine (absent irregularities that 538 doesn’t purport to address) the Presidential election.
OK, you're right, there are 56 elections, and what I meant by "no bearing" is, there has to be polling in most or all of the swing states. Furthermore, the swing states have weights. So it's a much more difficult problem than a single district, and a much noisier estimate since the per-state noise compounds.
I don't blame anyone for getting it wrong. It's a hard problem.
Yes, I have. I have even explained thr contradiction.
> You just said you like 538.
Not in this subthread.
> Their "lots of election events" are not different samples of a single variable -- they're different variables with different methodologies.
No, its lots of events with the same methodology (within an election cycle, within any class of election events.)
Now, in principal the Presidential general election prediction is a unique (per cycle) event, but the rules for assigning electoral votes based on lower-level electoral results are known in advance, and the national Presidential election is (equivalent to) a mechanical composite of the state level predictions via a model accounting for their degree of interdependence; both the state level prediction and the degree of independence of their variation are testable, and the model does not purport to predict variations due to faithless electors or interventions to assign electors other than by the state election rules in place prior to the state elections.
EDIT: Actually, there’s lots of predictions to evaluate even for the overall Presidential prediction, because there is a new predictiom every time they update based on new polling data, and you can evaluate the accuracy of the model using all of those predictions, not just the final one.