Skip to comments.Nate Silver just covered his A**
Posted on 11/04/2012 10:56:56 AM PST by Tom Riker
We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.
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?
Pew, Gallup and Rassmussen show turnout at R + 1-3 points...
Nate Silver IS an ass . . . So what? He’s wearing a burka now?
With all his BS....
He is trying to INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME of the election...
Keep your eye on the ball...
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.
Silver is a fraud. See my other thread below. Obama was feeding him internals in 08.
This clown was the featured person in today’s CBS Sunday Morning cover story. Farcical.
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
“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?”
(This is even funnier than the 999,900-under-a-Million Puppet (because they couldn’t use the million-dollar-making trademark “Muppet”) March.)
Who is Nate Silver, anyway?
People like him is what will sink the polling industry.
It’s already bad enough that their profession is a total scam, but they at least tried to keep a professional face on it. And when they are wrong, they can just write a nice commentary extolling how it was just a matter of them forgetting to move the decimal here or mis-reading the Interquartile range there.
People like Silver are taking the mask off and exposing the seedy nature of it as being nothing more than number fudging and partisan positioning to influence votes.
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.)
You can read his stuff here or check out his Wikipedia entry.
He comes across as a creepy whiz kid.
Anyway, just nitpicking your observation that the 68% swing was on a 1 point difference in turnout.
LOL I love this site..you guys come up with these photos, I have no idea where you get them from but they are always SPOT ON
Yea he’s probably afraid he will get swept away in the race riots or that the left will want his head for serving them hopamine laced koolaid for the last month.
If Rove or Morris pulled this crap today we would be going “WTH?”.
He is not a pollster. What are you talking about?
Nate is an excellent statistician. But his problem is the polls he is using as an input into his model. If a poll is wrong, that makes the entire model suspect. This is the difference between his baseball work, and politics. In baseball, we know the players data (hits, RBI, HR, etc) to put into the model. In baseball, it would be like polling all the other coaches/players. How many RBI’s do you think Jay Bruce is going to hit this year? That is the fault with his polling model.
And DUH.... if the turnout swings D+3 to R+1, even I can predict it will greatly increase one parties chances.
Ok...he plays with the stuff pollsters churn out and then assembles it into some franken-poll that is supposed to predict election outcomes.
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.