Based on Our Election Forecast, We Are 100 Percent Sure Anything Could Fucking Happen

Our election forecast model is the most rigorous data-driven tool available. It aggregates and weighs polls, draws on fundamentals like the economy, validates forecasts based on complex statistical vetting, and generates thousands of Bayesian election simulations to explore the likelihood of every possible outcome.

Based on that, I can tell you with 100 percent confidence that there is a 50 percent chance of any goddamn thing happening.

There are many vibes-based hacks out there. But if you subscribe to my website, I will debunk this ridiculous wish-casting that tries to convince you anything is possible and give you a complex quantitative analysis of why anything is possible.

I’m begging you, innumerate rubes, to take a single class on statistics and probability. A 50/50 forecast really means no outcome should surprise you. That’s also what a 60/40 forecast means. And also what a 75/25 forecast means. My models can really only tell you who will win when it is so overwhelmingly obvious that you don’t need a model.

Your “takes” merely amuse me. You childish morons. You absolute idiots. Anyone who has looked at the data and isn’t a complete dunce can be 1,000 percent certain in the deeply held knowledge that the future is uncertain and unknowable.

Ah, I see three new polls have come in. Based on our supercomputer-powered analysis, this has moved the forecast from 50/50 to 53/47! Please read my X thread, join our live blog, and tune into my interviews on CNN, MSNBC, and ABC for breaking segments where I explain to you infants why this shift is completely meaningless.

My forecast is the best there is, but you can’t ask it to tell you the future. It is best used for other key insights. For example, having crunched the numbers across seven billion data points, it turns out that swing states are important.

Don’t go to that other election forecaster. They are cherry-picking doofuses. Their simplistic methodology produced a 66 percent likelihood for Harris, which is laughable compared to my bleeding-edge algorithms, which produced a 50 percent likelihood. Their projection is absurd, mine is correct, and they both mean the same thing.

Without a grounding in data, we are lost. Pundits will focus on any number of squishy variables: “enthusiasm,” “the ground game,” “feelings.” We must find the signal in all this noise. And the signal is that no one should be surprised if next week we wake up in a Fury Road–style hellscape where we hunt each other’s children for their precious lifeblood.

Or not that.

History? Political science? Campaign strategy? This is all snake oil. Rigorous statistical analysis is our guiding light; otherwise, we would be lost without a map. By using our complex forecasting, you now have the perfectly optimized map, which you should look at but not base your navigation on, and which, in this case, is blank.

I am very smart.

Perhaps Harris wins. Perhaps Trump wins. I am here to tell you with absolute confidence that we exist, like Schrödinger’s cat, in a universe where both have won, and neither has won. If this surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. In 1 percent of simulations, Trump and Harris settle the presidency via cage match. In 2 percent of simulations, they open a quaint bakery in Vermont for dogs with Jill Stein, RFK Jr., and Tony Hinchcliffe.

Will those things happen? Probably not. But maybe. The numbers never lie, and there’s a 50 percent chance of anything happening. But more importantly, whatever happens, there’s a 100 percent chance I was right all along. I love my job.