Posted on 10/22/2016 6:33:24 PM PDT by GilGil
It’s been a rough election cycle for forecasting guru Nate Silver and his website FiveThirtyEight. Silver became a household name after he almost perfectly predicted the results of the 2008 and 2012 general elections, and his esteem was such that to some people he had removed almost all the suspense from elections.
Then Trump happened.
Nate Silver and his colleagues at FiveThirtyEight were extremely dismissive of Trump’s chances even after he rose to the top of the polls in the summer of 2015, and they repeatedly said as much. But ultimately, Trump proved to be a “black swan” event that was devastating to the retrospective models Silver relies upon to make predictions. Silver himself has been forthright about his failure...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
When you have seven “black swan” moments with the same candidate, your model is broken.
He has a good track record for the general though.
I was following 538 pretty closely during the primaries. What I saw was The website constantly predicting that Trump is the only one with the path to the delegates.
For several cycles....he was right on typical political elections. This is not that
Yup.
Silver is advertising his bias rather than dealing in the facts.
His prediction of a Hillary victory is nothing more than a guess.
I knew one year ago that Trump would win the nomination, and I gave him 3:2 odds of winning the presidency. My faith in the latter prediction has been shaken by the propaganda from the Enemedia, the GOPe, and the suddenly completely irrational #NeverTrumpers over at National Review.
I am feeling better today than I have in weeks. After all the crap thrown at Trump, a reasonable Democratic candidate should be massively up in the polls. But Hillary is not.
Rush is undoubtedly right about one thing. The Establishment has continually applied conventional thinking to this campaign in spite of massive evidence that this is a very atypical election campaign. The Black Swan is coming--and after the election, we are going to hear very creative explanations to explain it all away.
He didn’t get it right on the last midterms. He’s just mad that the tide turned for the GOP. He’s like a professional darts player. Just because you hit the bullseye 4 years ago doesn’t mean you can hit it 3x in a row.
Most interesting, most confounding, most energetic, most fun election since my first vote in 1972 for tricky Dick.
All pundits, both on the left and on the right have never been so wrong in my lifetime. Barring a black swan event, Trump will outperform his poll numbers as he has done in 47 out of 50 primaries.
Looks on the faces of Nate Silver & Larry Sabato on November 9th? PRICELESS!!
Silver successfully predicted 2008 and 2012, both elections in which Obama was running. Rumor that went around at one point was that Silver knew someone in Zero’s campaign who was feeding him internal polls.
I like IBD/Tipp they jumped in on Oct 2O and will keep reporting until election day.The do home phones and cells with real people and break it down.They have been right # 1 in the last 3 elections.They have Trump +2 today.To follow their results go to Day 4 Results: Oct. 22
Trump Expands Lead Over Clinton To 2 Points — IBD/TIPP Poll
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
Wow, is that Silver? That’s got to be the worst hairdo this side of Don King.
True that
The trouble with Nate Silver’s “chance of winning” is that it tracks polls exponentially not linearly. The polls it’s based on can change by a few percent but the “chance of winning” changes exponentially and by 10x the poll change.
That is the way his “chance of winning” chart is set up. People need to remember that.
So it looks way worse than it actually is, plus it’s based on polls that are proven to be severely D and W oversampled.
I know he’s hated here, but my understanding is that Silver just takes the poll results and puts them all into a model that allows him to adjust for bias. Of course there’s an equal potential for bias in his anti-bias adjustments ;-)
If this is true then I cut him more slack than the pollsters who manipulate and IMHO manufacture data. At least he has a process, but “garbage in, garbage out”.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and his general election "track" is exactly two elections long.
He is left leaning, and in this tiny sample of two he erred on the side of the Democrat...not exactly a surprising choice. I warrant there are probably millions of Democrats that with no real predictive ability at all felt Obama would win by looking at the polls in the last two elections and not too far off by the percentages he ended up winning by. Does not mean I should take any of those millions of people more seriously than anyone else, especially any pronouncements of doom for a Republican that they had consistently underestimated in the primaries.
The reason IDIOT Nate Silver was so accurate in 08 & 12 was because he had polling from Obama!
Natie, as all liberrals, lives in his own reality. There is a theory in criminal law that describes a perpetrator as “having known or should have known” what he/she was doing was criminal. Natie and his sidekicks at Real Clear Politics fit this perfectly. Natie knowingly avoids factoring in the clear enthusiasm edge Trump enjoys with his supporters- a consistent 11 points more intense about voting than Clinton supporters. Then to “strengthen” his “argument” he points to his chief enablers at Real Clear Politics that exclude pro Trump polls and include polls from outlets exposed by wikileaks as fakers who fix poll results to suit the DNC. Both are very dishonest people. Both know the turnout model they use is bogus.
Numerology at its finest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.