News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by smsm42 on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @08:34PM (#13547265)
Nate Silver has taken a major beating from pretty much everyone in the press when he put Clinton's chances as something like 2/3 IIRC (don't remember the exact number, but it was high, but not as high as 90%). Lots of pundits all around were berating him for being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian and inflating Trump's numbers just to draw attention to himself and so on and so forth - right up to the day Trump won. I don't remember any measured ones with 60%. Of course, I can't claim I've seen them all. Which ones were?

There are no comments on this comment yet.