That ' s nice , dear . <| sep |> Ei mitn hvi , mutta ei siihen kuollutkaan . Koulussa piti aikanaan tuotakin syd ja saattoi olla joskus intisskin Kajaani <| sep |> It ' s no problem , I knew I showed up rather late . You are amazing to dedicate all this time to helping people sell turnips ! <| sep |> How about the ordering of the names . everyone I ' ve talked to said Trumps name was at the top . Not random , or even alphabetical . probably uses the same Russian tech Putin used to win his elections . <| sep |> ah ok . First time I ' d seen it . <| sep |> People ' s opinionsvotes aren ' t random and are likely chosen before they happen . Saying Trump is going to win 1 out of 4 times isn ' t literal , it ' s a characterization of the probability that helps people understand that his odds are good enough that his win shouldn ' t be unbelievable nor an indication of the model being bad . Dice aren ' t random either . Newtonian physics is deterministic and could be used to predict the dice roll with enough data , yet you ' re not wrong to say rolling a particular value has 16 . 67 % probability if you don ' t know the exact initial position and trajectory of the dice . If you try to do more sophisticated modeling with physics you may produce a better yet still probabilistic result who ' s certainty is limited by how accurately can measure the initial position and trajectory of the dice . If you can perfectly measure the initial position and trajectory of the dice the uncertainty could approach zero and you would know the actual outcome . Likewise , electoral models aren ' t based on perfect omnicient knowledge of the initial conditions . The more accurate the polling data is the more accurate the predictions are . If you could force every voter to tell you how they ' d vote 6 hours before the election , you could predict it like a perfectly modeled dice roll . But pollsters can ' t do that . So the model describes an outcome as though it were random .