Yeah they sure were bad at predictions. If only they had aggregated all their predictions and compared them to how things actually turned out in one easy assess location. That sure would have been useful..... [0]

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250306183754/https://projects....

538 was actually pretty accurate!

They had a good article about how their predictions were much better than you'd expect, but obviously I can't link it anymore because ABC removed it.

Did he predict odds? How are you so sure his odds were wrong?

The 70:30 prediction against Trump was far better than most. I did see models back then that considered the state polls mostly or entirely uncorrelated, and those produced obviously garbage with 90% or even 99% in favor of Clinton.

But in the end people pick on Nate because he really enjoys being an asshole on the internet. It's far more about when he acts as a pundit, not as an expert on statistics.

This isn't about Nate's articles (although perhaps those are gone as well).

[dead]