Do you only play PC games ? <| sep |> Jesus bothered me more than it should have too <| sep |> It ' s exactly Fred ' s improvisational style . For comparison , Mike LaFontaine and his cruise ship stories . Of 8 JOVXYU 0 Q <| sep |> There ' s always a first time . And under the established rules , Trump hasn ' t won anything yet . The electoral college has not voted . <| sep |> when u smell some dank kush <| sep |> You are being unreasonably pedantic and obtuse about the language here . The coin flip is an ideal scenario . We only know that it is perfectly symmetrical . We don ' t know anything about the environment in which it is flipped , or even the initial forces acting on it as it is tossed into the air . Given our knowledge of coins though , we can say that if it lands on heads the first time , it still has a 50 % chance of landing on tails the second time . Why ? Because we don ' t know how it interacts with the coin flipper or with the environment . Similarly , with an election , data goes into a polling prediction . This isn ' t all the data in the world , it ' s a very limited set of data . In this context , if one were to speak of the election being repeated , obviously this refers to a hypothetical scenario in which polling has generated the same exact data for the model , even if the total reality of the election is different . The model will predict the same probability , but reality might cause a different result . I was only commenting on your reference to a probability that , as we now know , was based on a model that underperformed other models . Now if the reason for the underperformance wasn ' t known , then we can ' t actually say it underperformed . If 9 times out of 10 , for election cycles that produce probabilities of 90 % from one model and 60 % from another model , the candidate who is predicted to win actually does win , then the former model is obviously better , and in the 1 time out of 10 that both models predict the wrong winner it would be a mistake to deem the latter model better . However , if after the election you have access to even more data which helps you to understand from a theoretical view point the source of some of the error which was previously unknown , then you can be justified in declaring one model more accurate , from which point it wouldn ' t make sense to interpret the outcome under the probability distribution of an inferior model .