Oh for sure, I'm not trying to say the model should have predicted the drop outs. What I'm trying to say is that a model that only uses polls and demographics data to predict the outcome to an election several weeks or more in advance is fundamentally useless precisely because it can't account for things like orchestrated drop outs or buttery males. And also because any prediction made too far away from the date of the election is just unfalsifiable.
For example, what if the model had shown Bernie falling to a 5 percent chance of victory like a year out from the start of voting. What if this then rose back up to something more in line with contemporary polling data by the time voting actually started? Since there is no actual vote a year out from the election, there is no way to actually know if any of that spike corresponded to reality. This line of reasoning has also made me skeptical of polls conducted far out from the date of an election as well. Who's to say primary polls in January of 2019 were actually accurate representations of the electorate? If they were cooked, there would be no way to know because the actual election would still be a year away.
Yes, that I agree with. If you're looking at the 538 model 6 months out you should look at its previous predictions 6 months out to see how confident to be in its predictions (or maybe even look at its worst prediction at 6 months out or less for each election).
But basically yes, far enough from an election its silly to pay much attention to polls or models. But we're actually getting pretty close to the presidential election now!
Oh for sure, I'm not trying to say the model should have predicted the drop outs. What I'm trying to say is that a model that only uses polls and demographics data to predict the outcome to an election several weeks or more in advance is fundamentally useless precisely because it can't account for things like orchestrated drop outs or buttery males. And also because any prediction made too far away from the date of the election is just unfalsifiable.
For example, what if the model had shown Bernie falling to a 5 percent chance of victory like a year out from the start of voting. What if this then rose back up to something more in line with contemporary polling data by the time voting actually started? Since there is no actual vote a year out from the election, there is no way to actually know if any of that spike corresponded to reality. This line of reasoning has also made me skeptical of polls conducted far out from the date of an election as well. Who's to say primary polls in January of 2019 were actually accurate representations of the electorate? If they were cooked, there would be no way to know because the actual election would still be a year away.
Yes, that I agree with. If you're looking at the 538 model 6 months out you should look at its previous predictions 6 months out to see how confident to be in its predictions (or maybe even look at its worst prediction at 6 months out or less for each election).
But basically yes, far enough from an election its silly to pay much attention to polls or models. But we're actually getting pretty close to the presidential election now!