Posted on 06/29/2016 12:14:30 PM PDT by detective
Nate Silver has spoken: Hillary Clinton will be the next President.
The famed political pollster — whose past presidential predictions have been freakishly accurate — said Wednesday he gives the presumptive Democratic candidate a 79% chance of winning the White House come November.
Her loud-mouthed Republican rival, Donald Trump, has only a 20% chance of winning, Silver said.
“We're kind of at halftime of the election right now, and she's taking a 7-point, maybe 10-point lead into halftime,” Silver, founder of the political analysis website FiveThirtyEight, said on “Good Morning America.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
He picked 50 of 51 states in that contest and hit all of them in 2012.
no
So said people who couldn’t accept that Romney lost after pundits like Dick Morris and Michael Barone assured them that Romney was going to win in a landslide.
He’s not predicting a Hillary win in November. His totals are for his projection of what would happen if the election were today.
Is that a79% handicap for Clinton
How many hacks correctly picked 101 of 102 state Presidential votes in the last two elections?
The ordinary people I talk to (apolitical but tend to be conservative) do not like either candidate. They all know Hillary is corrupt and will not vote for her, but they are not flocking to Trump either. Trump needs to do what he is doing, rallying everywhere and talking about his accomplishments and plans, attacking Hillary every chance he gets, and he should pull this off with a last minute surge. Even if he surges before the last minute the media will lie and say it is still close.
And completely blew it this year. He’s a hack. Statistical modeling for sports fine. Politics? Sorry. Sooner or later the data relevant is not what you are looking at because past is not prologue.
Antes going to get his arse handed to him again I’m November
Nate Silver was right in 2012, but he may just be a flash in the pan.
He was off during the 2014 mid-terms and, early in the primary season, he gave Trump only a 5% chance of winning the primaries.
He’s acknowledged he didn’t go about it the same way he did in the past. He didn’t employ the statistical analysis that gave him a perfect run in 2012 and hit all but one in ‘08. Say what you will, but those weren’t luck or insider data.
That we're old Natey got his start .
Some resume !
The other 1% he gave to Daffy Duck. The guy’s such a cartoon.
He was crushed in 2014 and the Kentucky Gov race too. Every case in which Nate is not fed internal polling data from his fellow leftist . He sucks . In 2012 and 2008, many experts thought that gay lefty Nate was spoon fed the internal polls from the Muslim Radical Devious Cabal campaign on a weekly basis .
Nate was spreading the Kenyan Muslim spin weekly in 2008 and 2012 .
I agree. I think he has the best shot of winning of all the GOP candidates this primary season.
“The betting houses, prediction markets and polls all predict a Hillary win.”
And those same betting houses predicted that Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee. The key phrase here is “betting houses,” meaning half-ass guesses.
“Trump needs to apologize to Mexicans and Muslims repeatedly.
Alternately, the Republican Party needs to switch to Rubio for President and either Kasich or Cruz for Vice President.”
I hate both of those alternatives. Glad neither will happen.
He SAYS he didn’t use his methodology- who knows if that’s true.
There’s a lot of that excuse going around but I don’t believe it.
The recent mis-polling of Brexit and the Spanish elections show there is something very wrong with the models.
I agree the 80-20 chance is about right if the election were today though.
“In his own words, he “acted like a pundit” and made his projections based on a gut hunch. He appears to have learned from his mistake. His current projection for Hillary is based on that methodology.”
Nope, Nate is still betting his gut. Why? He’s a friggin’ liberal and can’t help it.
Again, statistical analysis is fine when you have the right data, problem when you try to apply them to politics is past is not prologue. When things shift in a major way the data that was relevant in the past is irrelevant now and your results don’t match reality.
He can try to claim he’s got the secret sauce but he’ll be sucking eggs in November.
“Trump needs to apologize to Mexicans and Muslims repeatedly.
Alternately, the Republican Party needs to switch to Rubio for President and either Kasich or Cruz for Vice President.”
Not a chance in hell, Sparky.
Are you sure you are on the right site?
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.