
Nassim Talebs case against Nate Silver is bad math - sandwall
http://m.nautil.us/blog/nassim-talebs-case-against-nate-silver-is-bad-math
======
andrewla
As I understand it, the feud in its current form started from a tweet from
Dinesh D'Souza [1] in which he interpreted Nate Silver's statement that "Dems,
GOP winning House are 'both extremely possible'" to mean that they had gone
from an 80% chance of winning to a 50% chance.

Taleb inexplicably chose this as the hill to die on [2] and wrote a lengthy
and technical paper to refute, and replied (on the [2] thread) "When someone
says are event and its opposite are extremely possible I infer either 1) 50/50
or 2) the predictor is shamelessly hedging, in other words, BS."

I've often found Taleb's ideas to be profound and interesting, and
unfortunately offset by his arrogance and occasionally cryptic pronouncements
and colorful colloquial "Brooklyn-ese" intentional misspellings of words (like
"gabish" for "capisce"). But in this case I'm having trouble following what
his criticism even is -- forecasts, especially probability forecasts, are
hard, and evaluating them is hard -- the dimensions of skill vs. calibration
vs. precision are hard to evaluate, and Nate Silver does a fairly good job of
describing the tension.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1059147114826162177](https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1059147114826162177)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1059202026184282113](https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1059202026184282113)

~~~
tshaddox
Yeah, "extremely possible" is perhaps a poor choice of words, and could be
interpreted uncharitably as a hedge against any outcome, but I think there's
an obvious charitable interpretation too: that things that have a 20% chance
of occurring turn out to occur around 20% of the time. No one would be blown
away by surprise if I proclaimed "SIX!" then rolled a six-sided die and got a
six, but that's even less likely than 20%.

So it's reasonable to say that, if 538 claims that an event has a 20%
probability of happening, and that event happens, no one should be astonished.
Of course, such events _ought_ to happen about 20% of the time, if 538's
models are good. And that evaluation is precisely what 538 published a few
days ago: [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-
work/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/)

~~~
tcbawo
Loads of people criticized Silver for not having "predicted" Trump's electoral
victory. I imagine Silver's language was trying to hand-hold people to an
understanding that even 20% probability events happen 1 out of 5 times. With
so many people trying to twist and spin every headline, prediction, number, I
appreciate Silver's attempt to make a reasonable guess with transparent
methodologies.

~~~
bambax
I have a hard time understanding this: what does it mean to assign
probabilities to one-off events?? The only way to verify probabilities
predictions is to test it a great number of times. Otherwise you can say
anything and never be wrong (except for 0 or 100%).

~~~
credit_guy
Every event is a one-off event. In particular the Trump election was the most
one-off event in recent memory :)

Kidding aside, your observation is correct, you need to perform repeated
predictions. 538 does just that. They keep predicting a whole lot of outcomes,
so you can check their track record. They even have a challenge for the
audience, where you can record your own predictions and compare them with
their corresponding predictions (see for example [1] for NFL games). The
scoring of the predictions uses the Brier score [2], which is just a version
of R-squared for classification problems.

In the case of the November 2016 election, other prediction sites were giving
the Trump team a 1-2% chance, 538 was giving them a 20% change. Considering
that, 538 comes out as the clear winner.

Which brings us to what I consider to be the best measure of prediction
accuracy (my own invention, it doesn't have a scientific name yet): you can
compare two sequences of predictions (let's say yours agains 538) by
simulating bets at some mid-odds level. For example if I say Trump's
probability of winning 2020 is 45% and you say it's 35%, then I'm willing to
give you 2-to-3 odds, while you're willing to take that. We then see who stays
ahead most of the time in this betting simulation.

For what is worth, here's a recent survey of different scoring types for
predictions: "Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for
traditional and novel measures" [3]

[1] [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/nfl-predictions-
game/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/nfl-predictions-game/) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brier_score](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brier_score)
[3]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010215](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010215)

~~~
Izkata
> In the case of the November 2016 election, other prediction sites were
> giving the Trump team a 1-2% chance, 538 was giving them a 20% change.
> Considering that, 538 comes out as the clear winner.

One common mistake I've seen is people mistaking that 20% as the expected vote
ratio. It definitely wasn't; that was hidden behind an apparently too-well-
hidden toggle (buttons above the graph), and was floating around 45% Trump and
48% Clinton, with overlapping error ranges.

------
jerf
"Since Silver’s forecasts begin with probability models, it’s safe to assume
they obey all the rules, including Bayes’, and would be arbitrage-free."

I'll do the author the courtesy of assuming they've got a more expanded
version of their argument in their head and just failed to express that, but I
don't think that follows at all. I don't think there's a constraint on "Nate
Silver has a probability model" that mathematically guarantees "Nate Silver's
probability model" is correct, in any sense of that term. One could certainly
provide evidence and/or proofs that Nate Silver's model follows those rules,
but I don't think it just goes without saying. If nothing else the model could
contain an straight-up error; goodness knows that's easy enough.

(If one wishes to add to the concept "probability model" that it must be
correct by definition, than I can't accept the statement "Nate Silver has a
probability model" with mathematical levels of confidence. He claims to have
one, yes, but that's a long way from a proof.)

~~~
baddox
> I don't think there's a constraint on "Nate Silver has a probability model"
> that mathematically guarantees "Nate Silver's probability model" is correct

If I'm understanding the article correctly, it's not talking about models
being "correct," it's just talking about the probabilities of all the outcomes
adding up to 100%, which means you can't place a bet that _guarantees_ you
make money regardless of the outcome.

In other words, offering a bet that was based on the claim that there is a 99%
chance of rain today in the Atacama Desert, and a 1% chance of no rain there,
is arbitrage-free. It's still clearly a poor probability model for one of the
driest places on Earth, but it's arbitrage-free.

~~~
ikeboy
If over time, your forecasts predictably change, then you can be arbitraged.

If e.g. I know that you'll have a probability below 40% at some point in the
future, and I know you'll have a number above 41% at some point in the future,
then it's trivial to create a strategy over time that is guaranteed to make
money.

Taleb's claim, as I understand it, is that Silver is incorporating random
noise into his model and so will exhibit such predictably swings, which
enables arbitrage.

~~~
mannykannot
If over time, your forecasts _predictably_ change, then they are not the best
forecasts you could make with the information on hand (I take it that by
"predictably change", you mean that they will change in a predictable way, not
just that it is predictable that they will change somehow.)

If I am not mistaken, an opportunity for arbitrage is not created merely by a
certainty that they will change somehow; it would require that they change in
a specific way, and deterministically so. Absent this, a bet would just be
speculation, not arbitrage.

~~~
ikeboy
>If over time, your forecasts predictably change, then they are not the best
forecasts you could make with the information on hand.

And this is precisely the complaint Taleb is making.

An arbitrage is just a strategy that's guaranteed to make money. If you know
for sure that something will go up and down at different points you could make
money risk free. Simply buy at any point below the current price and sell at
any point above.

~~~
Permit
> An arbitrage is just a strategy that's guaranteed to make money. If you know
> for sure that something will go up and down at different points you could
> make money risk free. Simply buy at any point below the current price and
> sell at any point above.

This is not arbitrage. Also this is precisely the kind of strategy Taleb would
have argued against in his book about black swan events.

~~~
ikeboy
Time arbitrage is arbitrage.

If someone was flipping a coin and raising their price when it landed heads
and lowering it when tails, arbitraging using reversion to the means would be
a perfectly legitimate arb strategy.

Taleb's argument is that Silver's estimates are based on random noise, and are
thus vulnerable to this form of arbitrage.

~~~
comex
It think it’s… sort of the reverse? Flipping a coin results in Brownian
motion, which is an example of a “martingale”, a function whose expected
future value is equal to its current value; and the evolution of a share price
being a martingale (at least under a modified probability measure) is exactly
the condition for the market to _not_ have arbitrage:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-
neutral_measure](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-neutral_measure)

I’m not sure exactly how the arbitrage works, though.

But the argument in the paper seems to be not that there’s noise but that
there’s too much of it. In fact, it assumes that the expected vote share over
time is subject to Brownian motion with specific parameters (which is a rather
flawed assumption), but then concludes that 538’s probability distribution is
more swingy what he’d calculate from those parameters.

~~~
ikeboy
The point is that Silver's predictions are the result of coin flips, but that
the underlying probability isn't. If he's updating further than he should then
you can make money by updating the correct amount and betting against him.

------
aubreyclayton
So... I wrote this. Maybe I can clarify a little what I meant by the statement
"Since Silver’s forecasts begin with probability models, it’s safe to assume
they obey all the rules, including Bayes’, and would be arbitrage-free.",
since this seems to be confusing some people:

What I'm addressing here is Taleb's claim that Silver's probabilities would
allow for arbitrage (i.e., riskless profit, not just profit on average) if
turned into betting prices. This is in the sense of arbitrage-through-time,
buying low and then selling high. As I discussed in the piece, an old argument
due to de Finetti says that if prices are arbitrage-free they must satisfy the
equations of probability, meaning you can in some sense think of the price as
giving a probability of the outcome. For time-dynamic arbitrage the relevant
equation is Bayes' Theorem. All I meant by my statement above is that the
converse to de Finetti's argument is also true, trivially. If prices obey the
equations of probability they are automatically arbitrage-free. And since
Silver's probabilities begin life as probabilities, they satisfy all the
relevant equations (one would expect).

Technically, the way we'd express this in modern finance is through the
Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing, which says a (complete) market is
arbitrage-free if and only if there exists an equivalent measure under which
asset prices are martingales. Silver's probabilities are necessarily
martingales, just because of the way conditional probability math works, so
unless Taleb can claim that his and Silver's probabilities aren't equivalent,
meaning they disagree on what events have probability zero, then there is no
chance of arbitrage. That's just the mathy way of saying the same thing I said
in the post.

There are many other possible errors Silver could be making, and many other
possible criticisms Taleb could have made but did not. In this case he wrote a
paper claiming a mathematical result that just isn't true.

Hope that's helpful!

~~~
songeater
Aside (but not really): guessing this is you?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6P1rjJuD_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6P1rjJuD_M)
A totally awesome set of lectures... highly recommended.

~~~
aubreyclayton
Yep! Thanks!

------
ham_sandwich
Isn’t it just one big misunderstanding between them?

Taleb thinks 538’s probabilities represent a binary option price on the event,
in which case, yes, the probabilities should stay very close to 50% because
the vol is so high. Whereas Silver’s models are actually saying “Based on
current polls, if the election were held tomorrow, then the probability
candidate X wins is Y%” and are thus allowed to swing more wildly. Aren’t both
just fundamentally different things or am I missing something in Taleb’s
argument?

~~~
chrismanfrank
You basically have it right.

But it's not a misunderstanding. Taleb understands Silver's approach, but
thinks it's BS, entertainment not forecasting.

He's right, but I don't know why he cares. The problem isn't that Silver
doesn't know math, it's that his goal is to entertain, not predict.

~~~
Pharmakon
Taleb calling someone else an entertainer is a bit rich, sort of like a clown
telling someone to have dignity. I have no opinion on Silver whatsoever, but
Taleb is a bloviating ass who has gone from popular milquetoast observations,
to climbing fully up his own backpassage. That this all began with the likes
of Dinesh D’Souza doesn’t help.

I realize that Black Swan is popular here, but it was horrendous. A single
essential premise which, instead of support, rested for chapter after chapter
on assertions. That’s not evidence, it wasn’t an argument, it was the sound of
someone having one good idea and then realizing they lacked the capacity to
support it.

------
hwestiii
Nassem Taleb is an arrogant asshole who can't write. I tried reading "The
Black Swan" and gave up in a flurry of swearing after less than 100 pages
because he utterly failed to justify any of his breathless assertions with
anything resembling an argument. Assertion after assertion with no reasoning
linking them. Game to Silver on points. At least he can back up his arguments
with explanations.

~~~
vtail
So Nassim Taleb's "Silent Risk"[1], a mathematical parallel version to
Incerto, is not good enough?

[1]
[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/SilentRisk.pdf](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/SilentRisk.pdf)

------
swanson
Related meta-analysis from the last go-around:
[https://towardsdatascience.com/why-you-should-care-about-
the...](https://towardsdatascience.com/why-you-should-care-about-the-nate-
silver-vs-nassim-taleb-twitter-war-a581dce1f5fc)

(Implicitly endorsed by Taleb via retweet)

------
trpc
I really want to be Nassim Taleb, I don't want to get a real job, I don't want
to be a slave for any kind of rules or laws whether in corporates, government
or academia, I am much bigger than that, I just want to make enough money
trading and shorting stocks during an economic bubble and retire young and
then set myself emperor of the world and make fun of whoever I don't like such
those academics who can't make 6 figure until in their 50s, of course
academics are much less smarter than a stock trader, otherwise why couldn't
they become rich like Taleb? right?!

~~~
coldtea
Well, you're being sarcastic, but he does have a point in all that.

The proof of the pudding being in the eating, and all that.

There's something to be said for respecting somebody who betted on something
he called and won (especially if they did it repeatedly), especially when most
others were all against the very possibility of them being right...

And being free with fuck you money does give you some freedom to say truths
(even if they're just your personal truths) employees can't.

~~~
trpc
even though I am kinda sarcastic I extremely admire this kind of thinking
(assuming that I got him right), many stock traders have this kind of free
thinking mentality and disdain for all kinds of rules and authority, George
Soros once said that the only reason people read about his philosophy is that
he made a few billions, he knew from the very beginning that having enough
money would make his ideas worth of being considered for smart people and
absolutely right for retarded people. It's like money shifts the truth or
something!

------
mrfredward
If I understand Taleb's argument, it can be boiled down to the following:

A year before an election, there's 365 days worth of news stories, interviews,
scandals, and other stuff that will be released to the public before election
day. The day before the election, 364 days of that election influencing stuff
has already happened and the effects of it are now known. As you get closer to
an election, you have more information, and there is less time for public
opinion to change, so it follows that you can be more certain of the
election's outcome.

Taleb's assumption that voter psychology can be modeled with a random walk is
pretty questionable, but if you give him that assumption, what's wrong with
his math? The article doesn't actually address this.

------
sincerely
On the other hand, he managed to get Nate Silver so mad that he called Taleb a
cuck. So who can tell who is actually right

~~~
baddox
Each person's _claims_ are either right or wrong (assuming they are objective
claims), regardless of any attribute or action of the person making the claim.

~~~
r00fus
There are situations where they can be both correct or wrong based on how you
judge them.

------
jolesf
Russ Roberts invited them both to discuss their differences on econtalk-
Nassim promptly declined. Until that happens, I think the twitter feud is
without value.

------
neuralk
Taleb's response to this article:
[https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1115684446081040386](https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1115684446081040386)

~~~
baron_harkonnen
It's worth noting that Clayton has a much more thorough, mathematical response
to Taleb's paper (written back in November):
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tQj4ZGja6jKADJGiFj-
dcQAirWo...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tQj4ZGja6jKADJGiFj-
dcQAirWoUFX46/view)

Since Taleb delights in make his mathematical writing as opaque as possible,
it's a useful read in just to know exactly the claims that Taleb is making in
his paper.

~~~
thanatropism
By that link's characterization Taleb's argument is pure fluff.

------
LanguageGamer
From a business perspective, the volatility of Silver's models seem like a
feature - they enhance the drama / sensationalism of election coverage. One
week, he's telling me candidate X will likely win, the next week it's
candidate Y, and I'm on the edge of my seat.

If Silver really believed these probabilities were correct, he should be
willing make bets with these odds, otherwise his incentives are distorted.

~~~
throwawaymath
_> If Silver really believed these probabilities were correct, he should be
willing make bets with these odds, otherwise his incentives are distorted._

Yes, the "skin in the game" argument. That is Nassim Taleb's calling card.
Personally, I consider it a little unreasonable to expect people to literally
put their money where their mouth is every time they make a forecast.

~~~
dictum
It's a kind of ad hoc censitary suffrage. One can only put possessions on the
line if they have them, and the greater one's possessions, the greater their
perceived "skin".

~~~
throwawaymath
Yeah I get the idea, I just don't like that it encourages dismissal of
opinions which aren't backed by some form of collateral.

------
mathattack
Taleb in person at a talk is very different than Taleb with a bottle of wine
on Twitter.

To both of their credit, they’ve expanded my knowledge of probability and
statistics.

~~~
iron0013
Have they though, or have they only made you feel as though your knowledge of
probability and statistics has expanded? Taleb is the poster boy for "sound
and fury, signifying nothing"

~~~
dmix
I don't know about Taleb, but Nate Silver's book on Bayesian statistics and
prediction in general got me really interested in statistics from a general-
reader standpoint. Where I ended up digging harder into the more math/sciencey
books afterwards.

The part about predicting Earthquakes and his work on sports is really good.

[https://www.amazon.com/Signal-Noise-Many-Predictions-
Fail/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Signal-Noise-Many-Predictions-
Fail/dp/B009HL6444/)

~~~
iron0013
I agree about Silver, and that was kind of my point! Silver knows his shit and
is able to communicate it in such a way that the reader actually learns
something. Taleb may or may not know anything, but all he is able to convey to
the reader is the impression that they've learned something (however, he is
very good at giving the reader an unearned sense of intellectual superiority).

~~~
dmix
Sure but he sounds like a decent scientist to me. While it’s true his
organization is very much an entertainment vector rather than a more academic
science output, which lowers the bar, that doesn’t necessarily mean the work
he’s doing doesn’t have some utility and value.

Probably a lot more real value than a typical news outlet these days which
pump out garbage at high speeds.

------
vertline3
I stopped paying attention when Silver said the Buckeyes only had a 2 percent
chance to win the title, because I knew that was bogus, team was stacked. Then
he did the same thing with the Cavs when they turned around and won, so it
just seemed to fit what Taleb says about "predictors" in The Black Swan. Since
then, I don't listen much to forecasters, their track record is dubious.

------
kiernanmcgowan
Whilst the fighting between the two is childish, I've always found this
interesting in a "statistics vs probability" perspective.

They may look like similar fields of art, but are radically different in their
approaches and how they seek to understand the world.

It also doesn't help that probability theory takes digs at statistics with
rules such as the "Law of the unconscious statistician"

------
ikeboy
>The converse to the statement above is also true: if prices form a set of
probabilities, then they are consistent. Since Silver’s forecasts begin with
probability models, it’s safe to assume they obey all the rules, including
Bayes’, and would be arbitrage-free.

I don't believe this is correct. You can lose money to arbitrage even with a
calibrated model if you ignore data someone else has, or include random noise
someone else isn't including, which is what Taleb's argument is.

~~~
abecedarius
Someone betting Taleb-style would have an edge over someone directly betting
on Silver's forecast numbers, but technically that's not arbitrage --
arbitrage in the sense of the article means a strategy with guaranteed return,
not just very probable. Is that right? So my impression is that this is an
argument about words, where traders mean 'arbitrage' more broadly.

------
ohboyherewego
There are several problems with both of them.

(1) Most of Nassim Taleb’s math is more branding and showing off than actual
science or statistics. It has been stated by people who are far smarter than
Taleb that “if you can’t state it simply then you don’t understand it.” If
Richard Feynman can explain physics in a relatable way, then taleb can talk
about statistics in the same. He doesn’t because explaining is not his
objective, personal branding is.

Taleb uses obscure, nonsensical math to show off and brow beat opponents. In
my experience, working with people who are actually smart, this is not what
very educated and intelligent people do.

The general public may fall for pictures of pages of obscure nonsensical
calculations depicting god knows what, all I see is fraudulent personal
marketing.

I say this having worked for and known CEOs who use the same tricks to lie to
investors. It’s bullshit.

(2) Nate Silver runs a media opinion network. I followed his work and early on
they did very rigorous analysis and had great and accurate visualizations
which did seem to accurate predict results.

For whatever reason, I saw five thirty eight evolve into a bunch of media
talking points and opinion mongering. The coverage on five thirty eight for
the 2016 election resembled strongly that of standard news networks.

Why? Because if you want to make money on advertising you need to completely
fill the airwaves with as much content as possible and opinion content is the
cheapest and easiest to produce.

My opinion is that Nate slipped. His data analysis got distracted by running a
media business, which focuses on advertising revenue and being likable by
target demographics.

Frankly I don’t trust either of them. I also side more strongly with Taleb -
predicting outcomes with random hidden variables is an exercise in chicanery.

No one wants to hear that the universe is random and that predicting it is
impossible for long stretches of time. Look at the comments here, 90% of
people (probably programmers) think that if they can just find the right
equations then predicting the future is possible.

Nope.

------
nicholast
Academic math: deriving precise solutions to predictive equations (eg
@NateSilver538)

Risk taker math: evaluating exposure to potential distributions (eg @nntaleb)

With whom would you invest? Also, a useful heuristic to detect charlatans. Our
knowledge of future never precise.

more at
[https://twitter.com/_NicT_/status/1115818015004688386](https://twitter.com/_NicT_/status/1115818015004688386)

------
rossdavidh
I really like reading Nassim Taleb's books, but he appears to have all of the
social skills of, say, Linus Torvalds, when interacting with others in a
public way.

------
acqq
Some old answers on Math Stack Exchange (Asked Sep 1 '16):

[https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1911110/what-is-
nas...](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1911110/what-is-nassim-
talebs-criticism-of-538s-election-model)

------
dalore
It might look bad for both for them but also a good way to drum up some
twitter followers. I followed them.

------
hnuser355
Taleb is smart etc but he’s basically a rambling eccentric who I ignore at
this point

------
kevinventullo
What's the probability that these guys are friends in real life who both
mutually benefit from the popularity of their public feud?

~~~
kolbe
I have a hard time believing Taleb can keep any friends. He thinks everyone is
an idiot, and doesn't have any reservation about telling them.

~~~
spitfire
He's good friends with Stephen Wolfram. Take that any way you like.

~~~
mwerty
A new kind of friendship.

~~~
whitepoplar
underrated comment

------
thatoneuser
I think nate silver is bad math because when he can capitalize on drama he
does. He paints himself as a fortune teller via math but has clear
demonstrable bias. When you do that as a predictor then you've thrown out your
integrity.

------
maxxxxx
I think the world would be a better place if nobody did any election
forecasting. I don't see what positive value these forecasts provide.

~~~
darkpuma
What positive value does American Football provide?

It gives us brain damage and entertainment, not much unlike election
forecasting.

------
KorematsuFred
I have zero respect for election forecasters because I think they are not any
better than astrologers. Nate silver has used the word probability in a way
that is not consistent with mathematical definition of probability so often in
this context.

Taleb despite being brilliant mathematician is actually pretty mediocre when
it comes to real world. A lot of his "discoveries" such as "skin in the game"
are well known to economists in the form of various theories.

I once exchanged few tweets with him about his criticism of Pinker's claim
that we are probably living in one of the most peaceful times in human
history. At no point Pinker makes a claim it was inevitable or it being the
evidence that peace will continue to exist. Taleb wrote a length paper on the
topic which I found to be totally incoherent. When I asked questions his
retort was that I do not understand statistics.

~~~
brian_cloutier
Do you have an example of a time where Nate Silver has shown a
misunderstanding of probability? Everything I've read by him has seemed
informed.

~~~
baddox
The best criticism I can come up with is that 538 probably doesn't do a
sufficient job of explaining to its audience that their published
probabilities are predictions for what would happen _if the event occurred
today_.

This seems to be one of Taleb's (and others') criticisms of their predictions:
that they don't consider the probability of major unexpected events occurring
between now and the event (like an athlete getting injured in the future, or
the FBI announcing an investigation of a political candidate). But as I
understand it, 538 is explicitly not attempting to consider those things, and
is simply publishing probabilities of outcomes if the event were to happen
_now_.

~~~
eridius
That seems like a pretty big difference to gloss over. Why are they publishing
probabilities for if the event were to happen today? The event _isn 't_
happening today!

~~~
pohl
I know, right? Every time my meteorologist gives me a probability of rain on a
day that it doesn't rain I ask the same question.

~~~
dralley
Meteorologists don't try to predict the weather 2 months from now.

~~~
pohl
Nate hasn't been trying to predict elections that far out, either, to be fair.
He has always said some variant of "if the election were held today" when
discussing the model.

