I don't see how that causes a credibility problem. Prior to having actual polls to work off of, all primary analysis regardless of source is just fluffy nonsense anyway. You can't make any sort of statistical predictions with a football team's worth of candidates and no polling worth mentioning. Once there was actual data to be had, their analysis was as accurate as ever. There's a quite good article about it that Nate wrote: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-donald-trump/
Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates. And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us