Dr. Sam Wang is a Cal Tech and Stanford educated quant who has worked wth financial investment companies. He confidently predicted that Hillary Clinton has a 99% chance of winning.
That's why quants are usually not billionaires like Trump, whose instincts are a thousand times better than a thorusand Stanford Ph.D. quants.
There is something particularly satisfying seeing those who are intel snobs totally WRONG in a very public mistake of their own making. As my mother used to say, “They think they are so smart they can hear grass growing.” This time they weren’t.
Wang got Shlonged!
He was right as a quant.
Every one expected Hillary to win.
No one foresaw a Trump upset. Even Trump’s own inner circle said Tuesday it would take an inside straight for him to win.
People were stunned when it happened.
He’s got WI, MI, PA, and FL wrong. Oops.
“He confidently predicted that Hillary Clinton has a 99% chance of winning.”
Pulitico predicted 98%. Both losers.
So Wang got caught with his wang between his legs. Corey lewandoski, the first Trump manager got the legs needed to get to the middle and Steve bannon, finished the campaign brilliantly. Those 2 should be honorary Freepers for life, if there is ever such a thing.
Looks like Wang was Wong.
Checked his site religiously. “How can anyone think this poll is ‘real’?” I’d say to myself again and again. (Ohio, SC, Ga...)
He treated each poll like it was Gospel.
Will Sam’s bug dinner be crispy or chocolate covered?
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/trump-polling-data/
Trump’s Big Data Mind Explains How He Knew Trump Could Win
They stood entirely alone. From Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight model to The New York Times‘ the Upshot model to the Clinton campaign’s own public projections, it seemed a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton would win. But for the past 10 days, Oczkowski says, the campaign saw a tightening in its internal polls. When absentee votes and early votes started coming in, his team noticed a decrease in black turnout, an increase in Hispanic turnout, and an increase in turnout among those over 55.
“The general political assumption would tell you that an increase in old votes is good, a decrease in African-American votes is good, an increase in Hispanic vote is probably troublesome,” he says. “We came to realize the way folks were polling in terms of their samples and who they consider likely voters, it’s probably been incorrect.”
So the Trump team reworked its models according to those early turnout figures and saw Trump’s chances skyrocket in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin. “The rural vote is the story tonight,” Oczkowski says. “The amount of disenfranchised voters who came out to vote in rural America has been significant.”
well he did eat the bug. Grasshopper i think dipped in honey.
I guess 218 is *kinda* close to 300.....
Thank you. That is the best laugh I have had all day.
Although subsequent events have incontrovertibly demonstrated that Jeff Nesbit was totally, monumentally, laugh-out-loud wrong in his hagiographic treatment of Sam Wang, at least he was very skillful in pushing the ugly and false leftist trope about white men suppressing minority and female votes.
So despite the Sam Wang glitch, it's abundantly clear that Jeff Nesbit is still in the running for the 'Leni Riefenstahl lifetime achievement award'.
Ping (read the article and the comments)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politics/pollster-eats-bug-after-donald-trump-win/
They are entertainers. Keep them away from financials and environmental health and safety systems.
Yet, in the next Presidental election we are going to have posters again on FR tellng us how accurate polls are and believing every bad that shows up (’not good’) and pointing to 2012 as their proof.