[GilGil]

It is important to go down memory lane and to see what kind of a train wreck Silver is with a very lousy track record. When he is forecasting Hillary with a 90% probability of winning he is just brown nosing. The odds are he is just as wrong as in the primaries.

[ConservativeMind]

When you have seven “black swan” moments with the same candidate, your model is broken.

[Trump20162020]

[lifeline]

He has a good track record for the general though.

[LoveUSA]

I was following 538 pretty closely during the primaries. What I saw was The website constantly predicting that Trump is the only one with the path to the delegates.

[goldstategop]

Yup.

Silver is advertising his bias rather than dealing in the facts.

His prediction of a Hillary victory is nothing more than a guess.

[Lysandru]

I am stunned how Silver and other handicappers seem to have learned nothing over the past year and a half.

I knew one year ago that Trump would win the nomination, and I gave him 3:2 odds of winning the presidency. My faith in the latter prediction has been shaken by the propaganda from the Enemedia, the GOPe, and the suddenly completely irrational #NeverTrumpers over at National Review.

I am feeling better today than I have in weeks. After all the crap thrown at Trump, a reasonable Democratic candidate should be massively up in the polls. But Hillary is not.

Rush is undoubtedly right about one thing. The Establishment has continually applied conventional thinking to this campaign in spite of massive evidence that this is a very atypical election campaign. The Black Swan is coming--and after the election, we are going to hear very creative explanations to explain it all away.

[Thane_Banquo]

Silver successfully predicted 2008 and 2012, both elections in which Obama was running. Rumor that went around at one point was that Silver knew someone in Zero’s campaign who was feeding him internal polls.

[dynoman]

The trouble with Nate Silver’s “chance of winning” is that it tracks polls exponentially not linearly. The polls it’s based on can change by a few percent but the “chance of winning” changes exponentially and by 10x the poll change.

That is the way his “chance of winning” chart is set up. People need to remember that.

So it looks way worse than it actually is, plus it’s based on polls that are proven to be severely D and W oversampled.

[jmaroneps37]

Natie, as all liberrals, lives in his own reality. There is a theory in criminal law that describes a perpetrator as “having known or should have known” what he/she was doing was criminal. Natie and his sidekicks at Real Clear Politics fit this perfectly. Natie knowingly avoids factoring in the clear enthusiasm edge Trump enjoys with his supporters- a consistent 11 points more intense about voting than Clinton supporters. Then to “strengthen” his “argument” he points to his chief enablers at Real Clear Politics that exclude pro Trump polls and include polls from outlets exposed by wikileaks as fakers who fix poll results to suit the DNC. Both are very dishonest people. Both know the turnout model they use is bogus.

[KosmicKitty]

Numerology at its finest.