12-06-2016, 04:10 AM
(12-05-2016, 07:09 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:Quote:But I factored in a Hillary win in 2016 to the candidate scoring system, and that was my mistake. Who wins or loses each year can shift the whole data base by a little bit. So scores will shift a bit. In such close elections as 2016 was, with close horoscope scores between the candidates, my slight counting errors can affect my predictions too. Hillary's scores will probably go negative, including all the new data based on the fact that she lost the electoral college instead of won it (that's a double shift I have to make this year). So if her candidate score was negative, she could not have won the election against Trump. ...
Here's an idea that will work. Do what the weathermen do and just assign a probability that your prediction[s] will happen.
Like this
Given his past history, zero percent seems to be the correct answer.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises