Do you think Nate Silver is right?
Why or why not?
Who are you supporting and why?
Should Nate Silver fuck off with his predictions already?
Silver called the easiest election in US history in 2012 and has got everything wrong since
>>79352958
Yes. Nate Silver is right. It's not like he personally put "79.2%".
It's data and statistics.
>>79353027
No. His primary model was fairly accurate when it came to the basis of polls and data.
His punditry is where he failed.
>>79352958
Of course he's right. This election has been decided for us already
>>79353787
His data has been consistently wrong which is why all his predictions are wrong. Bad Data, Bad Statistics, Bad Results. If he actually had a job and was a goy he would have been fired at least five times by now.
>>79353787
>It's not like he personally put "79.2%".
It does matter which polls one looks at. You can intentionally or unintentionally discount polls which don't agree with your desired outcome and that affects your data. I respect Nate Silver but I do think the reason he was so badly wrong so many times about Trump is that he simply doesn't like Trump and so will looks for data that supports his opinion.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.
>blue Florida
This meme needs to end.
>>79355527
Nah man, FL is as good as blue. Cuban Republicans won't vote for Trump, they prefer moderates like Rubio.
>>79354414
Nate Silver has already explained that saying Clinton has an 80% chance of winning does not mean she will win.
He had an article going over how the media is blowing everything out of proportion due to a misunderstanding of how to read statistics.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/an-80-percent-shot-doesnt-mean-clinton-is-a-sure-thing/
>I liked your ballgame analogy, Nate, in the article you wrote to accompany the forecast. Teams come back from 20-percent-win situations frequently. In fact, about 20 percent of the time!
>>79355527
it will on election day :)
>>79355658
every district but one went for trump during the primaries.
He knows his math, but he is personally biased against Trump to the point of having multiple twitter breakdowns over him. Is his model biased? I don't know. He won't release it.
>>79352958
what does "electoral votes" mean?
isn't it just like whoever gets the most votes wins?
or are electoral votes there for some special reason?
>>79355967
The bulk of his model is explained here:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
You could most likely use his explanation to build your own forecast relatively easily assuming he left nothing out
>>79356036
Electoral votes are an anachronism. Technically we don't vote for our president. Instead each state nominates a certain number of representatives based on the state population. These electors are then supposed to vote the way that the state's voters indicated. In practice it is exceedingly rare for an elector not to do so.
The reasons for this were twofold. First, when the country was founded the technology for long distance communications didn't exist so it made sense to send a representative to Washington DC. Second, according to what I was taught, the founders of the country were worried that the general population would be idiots. The hope was that the nominated representatives would be more educated and could be swayed to change their mind if the populace voted for a gibbering imbecile.
Silver is probably right.
Why?
For the left leaning, failure to support The Cause is a cardinal sin. Leftists that vote will predominately choose the party nominee regardless of who it is. If you don't support The Cause, you are against it and will be ostracized.
For the right leaning there's no cult-like fervor to support the party, there is only disdain towards the left. So voter turnout will likely be lower than average as many conservatives don't feel Donald represents them, or they will vote for their conservative candidate of choice anyway, or they will choose an independent.
His model predictions were right 90% of the primary.
His punditry however needs to stop.
>>79356455
All things considered though it is extremely rare for the Electoral college vote to not reflect the popular vote.
>>79352958
He's a pundit. Let him pontificate.
The truth belongs to those who are willing to find it.
>>79352958
Who is Nate Silver and why does his opinion matter?
>>79352958
a year or two ago i'd believe anything he says, now im a bit skeptical
>>79352958
> north carolina blue
>>79356504
>His model predictions were right 90% of the primary.
nope.
He flat out said that Trump had no chance of winning the primary.
(((SIlver)))
Silver was born in East Lansing, Michigan, the son of Sally (née Thrun), a community activist, and Brian David Silver, a former chair of the political science department at Michigan State University.[13][14] Silver's mother's family, of English and German descent, includes several distinguished men and women, including his maternal great-grandfather, Harmon Lewis, who was president of the Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc.[15] Silver has described himself as "half-Jewish".
EVERY TIME
>>79357164
His model was usually always correct but he never utilized it in his articles because nearly all of the 538 staff is obsessed with hillary so they ignored their own statistics
>>79356973
kek
anyone have the one with "why donald trump won't be the first president to visit mars" etc.?
here is a waifu for your efforts
sorry to say this, but as nate siilverberg is a dem, he does best when democrats win, and worse when republicans win.
just a simple fact.
B L U E W A L L
L
U
E
W
A
L
L
>>79357164
Why do people like you who clearly have no idea what data journalism is about even know Nate Silver? His models never said Trump had no chance of winning; he didn't even have real models for "who would win the Republican primary" (he had a model for "if they were on track" but it wasn't really a predictive model, just an analysis of "how well they were doing"). His models for who would win individual state primaries had about a 90% accuracy.
He had plenty of articles making holistic comments about Trump's numbers, based mostly on various historical candidates, which suggested to him that he was going to fall off before the end. But those weren't models, those were just blogs about how he reads the data in a political analysis kind of way. Models are heuristic algorithms that you plug polls into, weighted by factors that you think are most telling and then it spits out a distribution saying the range of possible outcomes and their corresponding likeliness.
>>79356847
>Who is Nate Silver
An annoying jew.
>why does his opinion matter?
It doesn't and he's been wrong about Trump every time he opens his lying jew mouth.
>>79352958
Nate Silver has never been right. He's that 14-year old who got dubs once and then kept making and deleting another post replying to the first repeatedly trying to get them again.
>>79354298
No it hasn't..
It's predicted a majority of the primaries correctly. Dumbass
>>79354414
>>79355967
Are you retarded?
Go look through the polls he has in right now, is he missing any?
Hillary is UP in the swing states. That's the fact.
How he even has Trump at 20% is bizarre to me.
>>79357934
Trump was an anomaly. If you look at the 2012 election you see NUMEROUS candidates spark and flare out.
Nonetheless, he did have a model for each primary and he got most right.
Bad polling/little polling ---> Bad predictions
