[Juan Medén]

Nate Silver IS an ass . . . So what? He’s wearing a burka now?

[Wings-n-Wind]

NSilver is NOT trying to analyze, comment, or forecast...

With all his BS....
He is trying to INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME of the election...

Keep your eye on the ball...

[goldstategop]

He doesn’t want to be made a fool of. If he’s wrong, he can still say the coming Romney landslide wasn’t a complete surprise to him.

[TigerClaws]

Silver is a fraud. See my other thread below. Obama was feeding him internals in 08.

[John W]

This clown was the featured person in today’s CBS Sunday Morning cover story. Farcical.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Libs already know Obama has lost..they will come out with this shocked face after wards and blame everything on racism. Libs have known for MONTHS, especially after the 1st Debate, that Obama was finished..its kind of like what McCain did in 2008, he knew that he lost but he still came out with the phony smile like everything was OK, its the same thing the libs are doing here. Obama already has his mansion purchased in Hawaii for 35 million the deal is done

[Factfinder]

“30 percent IF its R+1? really? so you basically drop 68 points and a romney win if the only thing changes is O goes from tie turnout to plus r 1?”

LOL!!

(This is even funnier than the 999,900-under-a-Million Puppet (because they couldn’t use the million-dollar-making trademark “Muppet”) March.)

[apillar]

Lol! The liberals must be going apoplectic, they have based everything on the great Nate Silver. And at the 11th hour he just essentially said to them, “Uhhm guys...maybe there is something you should know....that 80% prediction...it only works if turnout for Obama is the same as 2008, anything short of that and it's Romney in a walk...” THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL THEM FOR THE LAST MONTH, NATE SILVER IS USING THE 2008 TURNOUT MODEL!

[Eva]

Who is Nate Silver, anyway?

[nkronos]

The R+1 is Romney +1, not Republican +1.

He’s saying Obama has a 30 percent chance of winning the EC even if Romney wins the popular vote by 1 point.

(Not saying I agree with him, only explaining what he’s saying.)

[Cboldt]

He gives the probabilities as 98% at O+1, and 30% at R+1, a swing of 2 points. That's a darned narrow (proposed) distribution, to swing that far with that small a turnout move.

Anyway, just nitpicking your observation that the 68% swing was on a 1 point difference in turnout.

[Raycpa]

This information is a huge admission on Nate Silver’s part. Up until now he has used cherry picked polls under the guise that his statistical analysis was sufficient to determine which polls are reliable. His analysis claimed he was smart enough to only rely on those polls which are reliable.

[Mr. Bird]

Let's be clear. Silver is a douche, and has received a ridiculous amount of praise for what is essentially a Monte Carlo statistical analysis of existing polls. He is "reporting" what anyone could report with an elementary understanding of statistical probabilities.

If Silver had been sitting next to me at Game 5 of the NLDS in DC, he would have told me the Nationals had a 96% probability of winning in the top of the fourth. He would have told me the Nationals STILL had an overwhelming edge in the bottom of the ninth with two out and two strikes.

The problem with everyone who takes Silver seriously is that he is merely spouting objective statistics based on polling data that is not validated and can never be, with respect to Tuesday's vote.

If the polls showing Obama winning are right, then Silver is right. If they are wrong, he is still "right". He is not an analyst, and he will be the first to throw the polls under the bus when he is "wrong". Silver's reports are liberal masturbation.

[Mitt Romney]

In reality, Nate Silver is probably just some guy who does his “analysis” in between World of Warcraft sessions while living in his mother’s basement.