Probabilistic Election Forecasts Are Stupid and You Should Not Look at Them | Washington Monthly

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

59% : That's what Silver said about Trump and his forecast after the 2016 election, arguing he should get credit for not fully counting Trump out, when other forecasts essentially did.Fair enough, but such emphasis on uncertainty certainly would be useful today, with all forecasts showing an even closer race.
49% : Real Clear Politics did better, more accurately giving Trump a slight edge in the two southeast states (with final averages, rightly or wrongly, influenced by a couple of Republican-affiliated pollsters).
39% : ***Silver-driven panic intensified in Democratic circles last week as his Silver Bulletin forecast (he no longer runs FiveThirtyEight) gave Trump a chance of winning above 60 percent.
38% : None of these give Trump the edge, and most put Harris's percent chance of winning in the mid-50s.
23% : RCP's poll averages also got two states wrong, but was closer to the actual Electoral College count because the mistakes partially offset each other: Florida to Biden and Georgia to Trump.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.