The Economist's Monte Carlo simulations of the election give Biden a 92% chance of victory.

https://projects.economist.com...r_axiosam&stream=top

That won't matter if I-1 refuses to acknowledge he lost and refuses to vacate the premises and if his armed thugs protect him.

Let him be a squatter - remove all staff except the secret service guard for ex-presidents... See how long he lasts!

The consensus of polling saying Hillary Clinton would win was over 98%.

quote:

Originally posted by rontuner:
Let him be a squatter - remove all staff except the secret service guard for ex-presidents... See how long he lasts!

No. This is a guy who has evaded accountability his whole life. Escort him off the property. By force, if necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
The consensus of polling saying Hillary Clinton would win was over 98%.

No idea what you're talking about. Here's Nate Silver's pre-election forecast ...

FiveThirtyEight Forecast

A 78% probability of winning is a 22% probability of losing. I've rolled enough dice to know that 22% is a big number.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
That won't matter if I-1 refuses to acknowledge he lost and refuses to vacate the premises and if his armed thugs protect him.

quote:

Biden said he is convinced that if Trump loses but won’t leave, military leaders “will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
The consensus of polling saying Hillary Clinton would win was over 98%.

No idea what you're talking about. Here's Nate Silver's pre-election forecast ...

FiveThirtyEight Forecast

A 78% probability of winning is a 22% probability of losing. I've rolled enough dice to know that 22% is a big number.

Over 98% chance of winning was the aggregate of polling in the US. I remember this clearly. I'm surprised you don't.

And she didn't spend a day in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. It's almost like she wanted to lose.

But I digress.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
The consensus of polling saying Hillary Clinton would win was over 98%.

No idea what you're talking about. Here's Nate Silver's pre-election forecast ...

FiveThirtyEight Forecast

A 78% probability of winning is a 22% probability of losing. I've rolled enough dice to know that 22% is a big number.

Over 98% chance of winning was the aggregate of polling in the US. I remember this clearly. I'm surprised you don't.

98% of polls picking Clinton isn't the same thing as 98% probability of winning. Do you understand the difference?

I didn't say 98% of polls. Let me be clear. Over 98% chance was given all polls being included.

Your Nate Silver example of 78% is argument from insufficient sample.

You've offered your memory as the sample. I've offered one of the most reputable pollsters, who, like most others, saw an outcome that was unexpected.

You still don't seem to understand probability, or how polling works.

Here's another one ...

91% chance (still 9% chance the other way)

... and here is the very reputable Upshot Blog

Upshot Blog


Here is Reuters

Reuters at 90%

Here's one egg-on-face Princeton egghead who said 99%

Princeton professor

... but the article mentions other polling that call this guy a real outlier.

But carry on.

Argument from authority.

Have a nice day.

I think you may misunderstand what an argument from authority is.

An argument from authority is when you say, "X is true because Reputable Person says so!"

When the argument is about what polls said in 2016, and when PD actually shows you what the polls said in 2016, that's not an argument from authority. It's called evidence, evidence in support of his statement. If the argument is about what the polls said then, what better evidence is there than the polls themselves?

Daniel's memory ...