Click the map to create your own at Assuming the shy Trump voter is plus 4 in the polls we've seen so far.
Posted on 09/27/2020 6:51:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Election analyst Nate Silver runs a website called FiveThirtyEight.
His website now gives Joe Biden a 77 in 100 chance of winning (we call that a 77% chance, but whatever).
For the record, on Election Day 2016, at 10:41 a.m., Silver posted a story on FiveThirtyEight.
“Final Election Update: There’s A Wide Range Of Outcomes, And Most Of Them Come Up Clinton,” said his headline.
Silver said his “forecast has Clinton favored in states and congressional districts totaling 323 electoral votes, including all the states President Obama won in 2012 except Ohio and Iowa, but adding North Carolina.” He hedged his bet a bit, though, saying Mrs. Clinton could lose North Carolina or Florida especially, so “the average number of electoral votes we forecast for Clinton is 302.”
Clinton lost both (North Carolina by a lot, 3.8%). She also lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. In the end, she got crushed in the Electoral College, 304-227.
Silver in June came out with another prediction: A “Biden landslide is possible.” Really?
But there’s another recent survey that throws a monkey wrench into Silver’s predictions, saying “secret Trump supporters” in at least one swing state could signify more in other states.
The poll by Monmouth University of 401 Pennsylvania voters found that a majority of voters think there are Trump supporters out there who aren’t being counted. “The media consistently reports that Biden is in the lead, but voters remember what happened in 2016. The specter of a secret Trump vote looms large in 2020,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.
“Most voters (57%) believe there are a number of so-called secret voters in their communities who support Trump but won’t tell anyone about it. Less than half that number (27%) believe there are secret voters for Biden. The suspicion that a secret Trump vote exists is slightly higher in swing counties (62%) and Clinton counties (61%) than in Trump counties (51%),” the pollsters wrote.
Believe the polls are your peril — and you might want to give FiveThirtyEight a pass altogether.
Does he or does he not take it up the ass? What else could it be?
Nate must be on the sauce..................
Pitcher or catcher?
Must be great to have a job like that of the weatherman: “We likely get 12-16” of snow tomorrow, unless the storm track heads a tad south of us, then it’s just a dusting.”
Silver is the chump that Drudge has been sourcing every day for months. More of their demoralization campaign. He’s also a balding little twinkie and Drudge’s butt puppet.
Good. If he had Trump winning I’d be worried.
Well at least Nate’s moving in the right direction. In 2016 he had Hillary at 98%.
So true. For almost four years the Democrats, the MSM and all the leftist political pollsters and gurus have tried everything to detach the president’s base from him and have failed spectacularly. Now they’re resorting to their last tactic of trying to demoralize his voters by telling them the race is over! They won’t give up until Trump leaves the White House in January of 2025!
Assuming the shy Trump voter is plus 4 in the polls we've seen so far.
Bullshit.
“In 2016 he had Hillary at 98%.”
False. He never had her at higher than 89%, and that way back in August; election eve he had her at 71% - less than any other forecaster: https://web.archive.org/web/20200902081724/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
When it’s 270 electoral votes to win, a forecast of 302 is not a “big win.”
No, "possible" is not a prediction. I swear, to be allowed to write type for GP, you must have to provide medical evidence of brain damage.
Nate won’t admit he’s biased
Silver loves poles. He could be sitting on a big one that he hasn’t told us about yet.
Silver doesn’t predict anything. He forecasts probabilities. You can question the methodology he uses to make his probabilistic forecasts (which basically is just to look at polling data — his forecasts will be off of polling data is not accurate). What you can’t do is conclude that he’s wrong based on the actual election outcome. He predicted Trump had a 20% chance of winning in 2016, not a 0% chance. Therefore he wasn’t wrong.
To give an analogy, flip a coin three times. I predict that there’s a 12.5% chance that you’ll flip heads all three times. Thus there’s an 87.5% chance that you won’t. I’m not actually predicting an outcome if you did flip three coins. I’m predicting that it’s more likely that you won’t flip three heads than that you will. If you actually flip three heads, my prediction was not proven wrong — you just happened to see an outcome that was of lower probability. The chance of flipping heads is not zero.
To extend the analogy, just as Silver relies on accurate polling data as a basic assumption in his forecast model, I relied on your use of a coin that has equal probability of landing on either side. If you somehow unbalanced your coin so that it lands on heads 90% of the time, my forecast of 12.5% chance of three heads would be way off (72.9% would be the correct value using that’s 90% heads coin). Similarly if polling data is inaccurate, so will Silver’s forecast.
I always trust poll analysts who use cartoons to highlight their data. Seriously, this clown nailed it in 2012 and the Left has genuflected Silver ever since. I noticed how even when it was obvious Trump was going to win, Silver consistently prattled the DNC line. No wonder he’s so revered by the media.
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.