It's not like we do elections every month to test out their probability distribution against empirical data. The distribution collapses into a binary outcome at the end.
I have a dice. I claim the distribution is of equal outcome for each side. Well...we don't get to test the dice more than once. 1 sample size does not prove that the 538's predictions were right (or wrong).
Thanks for assuming I can't do math, no way to argue with someone but I am actually pretty bad at it. :-)
Everyone is bad at probability and statistical distributions, not just you. The problem with modeling elections is that there are so few of them and the data is very noisy and until quite recently rather suspect. Let's not pretend that this was a normal election, either in the candidates running or in the manner in which the campaign and election was conducted.
As to the question of why bother, it is because bad polling is better than no polling at all. Campaigns are now multi billion dollar enterprises managing tens of thousands of temporary employees for the creation of a product that will only be sold once and in 18+ months from when they start the process. Any data is better than nothing.
The fact that the public has become obsessed with polls is probably due to the ongoing nationalization of politics.
It's not like we do elections every month to test out their probability distribution against empirical data. The distribution collapses into a binary outcome at the end.
I have a dice. I claim the distribution is of equal outcome for each side. Well...we don't get to test the dice more than once. 1 sample size does not prove that the 538's predictions were right (or wrong).
Thanks for assuming I can't do math, no way to argue with someone but I am actually pretty bad at it. :-)