Posted on 09/01/2016 7:39:43 AM PDT by Jack Black
The race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has tightened. Clinton, whose lead over Trump exceeded 8 percentage points at her peak following the Democratic convention, is ahead by 4 or 5 percentage points today, according to our polls-only forecast.
***
Overall, Clinton’s leads in the tipping-point states — the ones most likely to determine the Electoral College winner in a close election — average about 4 percentage points, close to her numbers in national polls.
I believe they will decide after the debates in Trumps favor.
the debates will, indeed, be instrumental, not to mention extremely interesting; Hilary Clinton’s health issues will proven or disproven...
personally, I believe the woman’s physical condition to be quite frail, and I read somewhere today that a racehorse suffering similar symptoms would not be allowed to compete...
Hmm, here is his article from April 27: "It's Trump's Nomination to Lose"
Tuesday night went about as well as possible for Donald Trump.Nate was very skeptical about Trump before any voting started, like in the Aug 2015 article: Donald Trump's Six Stages of Doom".Two weeks ago, after a rough stretch of states for Trump, we issued a series of delegate projections that included something called a “path-to-1,237” projection, a set of targets that would allow Trump to clinch a delegate majority without having to rely on uncommitted delegates. With Trump’s terrific results in New York last week and even better ones in the five states that voted on Tuesday, Trump is running a little ahead of that path.
But I don't think he's a great soft analyst of elections. Guys like Barone and Pat Caddell have more of a feel for how races can run early on. Nate is a modeling/data guy, with no data he's just another New York jerk with an opinion.
And, most impressively, he did admit that he screwed up and wrote a whole column about it:
How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump. I find that refreshing.
In it he gives his own stats: "We could emphasize that track record; the methods of data journalism have been highly successful at forecasting elections. That includes quite a bit of success this year. The FiveThirtyEight “polls-only” model has correctly predicted the winner in 52 of 57 (91 percent) primaries and caucuses so far in 2016, and our related “polls-plus” model has gone 51-for-57 (89 percent). Furthermore, the forecasts have been well-calibrated, meaning that upsets have occurred about as often as they’re supposed to but not more often.
That does not substantiate your "totally sucked" claim. 89% is damn good for prediction election outcomes. Shit, if you could get to that in Football you'd never work again!
So, yeah, he made some mistakes early on, but when it got to the actual job of forecasting elections based on polls a few weeks out he did really well. Again.
Of course, you are free to dislike him anyway.
When the vast majority of people would prefer that someone other than Hillary was the Democratic candidate I don't see how it's helpful that she might die shortly after taking office and thus allow someone less offensive to take her place.
Heck, that accomplishes just the opposite of what we want!
The LAST thing I want is someone who wouldn't have voted for Hillary, voting for her thinking... well I HATE her and usually wouldn't vote for her... BUT since she's going to die soon anyway, and will be replaced with someone more palatable, why not?
I mised that; 12th lady?
Of course, you are free to dislike him anyway.
regarding the article cited on this thread, it is odd that that Silver’s foibles are being recounted; it would seem that those doing so would logically reject his perfectly reasonable premise that Hilary Clinton cannot simply lie low and tally up her votes from the ‘Blue Firewall’, and thus would be implying that said block of votes can indeed be wrapped up for her, like some electoral birthday present...
Most of the people I knew who voted for Reagan are in Heaven now. Unfortunately, if they are still voting, they are voting Democrat now.
What polling from WI may I ask?
He was right about 2014 midterms in the US, but underestimated the GOP blowout.
There must still be a lot of the Class of 80 out there! Man, those were the days! Attending a liberal Boston area university, and being pro-Reagan was not easy even in those days.
We had constantly been called "fascists" for months. My (clever) room mate organized a day-after breakfast in the College dining room and made stylized armbands for us all that said "RRY" (Ronald Reagan Youth). It *was* the punk rock era, he went all in and shaved his hair down to a short crew. Five or six of us at celebrating at breakfast in boots and braces. There were people who looked on the verge of tears! Priceless.
The Trump victory, should we be so fortunate, will make that gnashing of teeth look small. The emo-tards are really going to lose it if HRC screws the pooch the year.
Actually, Carter was ahead of Reagan by double digits in the summer of 1980.
By October, the media said Carter was “9 points ahead.”
On the eve of the election, the race was “too close to call.”
I lived in California back then, and at 3:00 PM Pacific time on election day, the alphabet networks called the race for Reagan.
It would take massive voter fraud in 1 or 2 States . Az & Il have already been hacked ( that we are aware of).
A few cycles ago the election was decided by 1 State and that State was decided by a few thousand (if that many) votes.
I’m very apprehensive about this election.
There’s that Mormon ex-CIA guy that is hoping to pull off Utah. Of course, there are some funny combinations needed if Utah’s electoral votes will be enough to put it in the House.
I was specifically (maybe not clearly) referring to the state by state predictions. Many times he predicted Hillary would win, but Bernie won in a landslide and many times he predicted Cruz would win but Trump did.
l looked for those states on his website, but (shock) all evidence has been erased.
OK, I found it. And it was 99% chance. Yes, that's a big miss, especially since it wasn't even that close.
But I'm going to have to say he's not guilty of hiding stuff: you can use the menu that says "Michigan" in the middle of the screen and find every other primary/caucus that he weighed in on.
I believe him when he says he called 89% of races correctly on Polls Plus model and 91% on Polls Only (or whatever it was).
I visit the site pretty much everyday and talk about it on a private email list with a couple friends, and my recollection is that his misses were unusual and always worthy of discussion.
BTTT
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.