Dude, you're gaslighting by using the national results as evidence instead of the individual states, which is what this has always been about since my original comment. Nearly every consequential state fell at, or beyond, the tail end of 538's confidence interval (BTW, who uses 80%? and not 90-95%?), on the same side. A bit closer to the mean in AZ and GA but same side, over-estimating Biden's margin of victory. Deny it all you want, gaslight, cover your eyes, whatever -- but clear, convincing, overwhelming evidence of a systematic flaw or bias in the underlying polls is right there in front of you.
Many political handicappers had predicted that the Democrats would pick up three to 15 seats, growing their 232-to-197 majority
Most nonpartisan handicappers had long since predicted that Democrats were very likely to win the majority on November 3. "Democrats remain the clear favorites to take back the Senate with just days to go until Election Day," wrote the Cook Political Report's Senate editor Jessica Taylor on October 29.
> Nearly every consequential state fell at, or beyond, the tail end of 538's confidence interval
While I haven't checked each and every individual state, I'm pretty sure they all fell within the CI. Tail end yes, but within the CI.
> (BTW, who uses 80%? and not 90-95%?)
... The left edge of the 80% CI shows a Biden loss. The point was 538's model was not any more confident than that about a Biden win. So yeah, not the highest confidence.
> Deny it all you want, gaslight, cover your eyes, whatever -- but clear, convincing, overwhelming evidence of a systematic flaw or bias in the underlying polls is right there in front of you.
Posting a bunch of media articles doesn't prove anything. I'm not saying there isn't systemic bias here, but your argument is simply that you wanted the polls to be more accurate and you wanted the media to write better articles about uncertainty. There's no rigorous definition of "systemic bias" here that I can even try to prove through data, all you've done is post links. You seem to be more angry at the media coverage than the actual model, but that's not the same as the model being incorrect.
Anyway I think there's no more for us to gain here by talking. Personally, I never trust the media on anything even somewhat mathematical. They can't even get pop science right, how can they get something as important as an election statistical model correct.
Many political handicappers had predicted that the Democrats would pick up three to 15 seats, growing their 232-to-197 majority
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-races/2020/11/...
Entering Election Day, forecasters projected Democrats would gain House seats and challenge for the Senate majority.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/2020-election-results-democr...
Most nonpartisan handicappers had long since predicted that Democrats were very likely to win the majority on November 3. "Democrats remain the clear favorites to take back the Senate with just days to go until Election Day," wrote the Cook Political Report's Senate editor Jessica Taylor on October 29.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/04/politics/2020-election-senate...