New York Times: “While election polling has been around for more than a century, election forecasts have come to the forefront only in the past decade and a half. And while polls are intended to provide a snapshot in time, taking the pulse of how Americans are feeling about a race, forecasts go a step further, analyzing the polling and other data to make a prediction about who is most likely to win, and how likely.”
“But this year, with the polls already showing a razor-thin presidential race, the forecasts often indicated that the race was tied nationally or in swing states, or they gave one candidate or the other only a slight edge.”
“These results raise the question: What is the value of these election forecasts? Proponents say they help synthesize the available information and that more data is better than less. They also argue that the forecasts this year performed well, generally — capturing the uncertainty of a close race, while holding out for the possibility that Donald Trump could sweep the swing states, as he did.”
“But critics say forecasts add more noise than signal — and may even be doing harm.”
Save to Favorites