Look Nate Silver in 2010 ended up predicting the election in most cases but what is hard to find in writing, but I remember, is he changed his October 31st final stats by about a third. Before that he spewed the same crap he is spewing now that promotes his liberal roots being the son of a MSU liberal professor and a mom who is a nut liberal.
posted on 10/19/2012 8:15:00 PM PDT
(Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
Memo to the clueless moron Nate Silver:
Its the white men, stupid!
posted on 10/19/2012 8:33:13 PM PDT
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
Nate mentioned 60 seats were possible but couldn’t bring himself to embrace that number and settled for a 50 something final estimate.
Charlie Cook was predicting 60 seats.
So was Mark Halprin.
2010 tarnished the golden boy’s crystal ball.
posted on 10/19/2012 9:19:07 PM PDT
(...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
To: crosslink; radpolis
My recollection was that in 2010 Rasmussen called the historical
Republican takeover of congress correctly, but got the margin wrong on some races, particularly in the West. If the worst thing a pollster ever does is get a few races in an off-year election incorrect, I still think that's pretty good. The bottom line is that Rasmussen was still right, and Pelosi appeared to be shocked that she needed to move out of her office.
In effect, Silver is picking off all the poll results he doesn't like, while blowing off all the methodological problems with the ones that he does like. What was it that Mark Twain quoted of Benjamin Disraeli? "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The general thought holds for statisticians, too. Wearing a white lab coat doesn't turn anyone into a scientist.
posted on 10/20/2012 4:08:25 AM PDT
("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson