The way I see it is the only way Clinton can win is through massive election fraud....
How was nate on Trump whipping 16 in the primaries? and oh yeah nate are you spending all that Brexit money you won on that bet?
I’m not a Silver fan at all, but I have to say those odds look about right. I expect Trump’s chances to improve over time, but this was never going to be easy.
My gut tells me that this will be fairly close race all the way until the end, and then one or the other candidate will bust it open and win with about 330 electoral votes. I don’t know which one that will be.
This was never going to be easy, folks.
Nate Silver, another Secular Progressive Jew (aka Capo) for the destruction of America!
Rush went through the dated listing of his 6 previous wrong predictions on Trump
Here’s the text of an email that I just received from a friend who is a decorated Nam veteran. Please read and share.
This was sent to me from a friend ... please pass along...
“Look, we need to understand where we stand in the middle of all these circus acts and distractions. And trust me, the circus is for us. The media is blinding us with Trapeze Acts and Equestrian shows while the bad guys steal all of our country.
Get this straight right now and spread this message as far and wide as possible. Hillary has somehow risen above the law. She actually runs things now. She has ALL of the press on her side. Hell, she even has the GOP on her side. How did she do this? She has hundreds of millions of dollars and she is using a lot of her funds to pay off the FBI and the rest of the enforcement branch. Nothing is going to stick to her. She told us already just as confidently as she could that nothing is going to come of the Benghazi investigation and nothing is going to come from the Email investigation, How can she just brazenly say this? She can because she knows it is true. She has the best air cover that money can buy! Come on, you saw the media in action yesterday after the Benghazi report came out. The Q&A afterwards from the press was an ambush. Goudy and the boys were accused of wasting seven million dollars of taxpayers money. CBS, ABC, NBC and all of their affiliates including CNN ran the same lines: “Nothing New on Hillary” “No Wong doing on Hillary’s Part”.
I know this hurts but we have to face up to the fact that Hillary owns the justice department and the press. She’s paying people all over to look the other way, She is a disgusting criminal of magnitude and has to be stopped. The Justice Department isn’t going to stop her. Congress is not going to stop her. The only entity that is going to stop her is us, the voters. We The People.
We need to act and act now. We need to disseminate at every level to all who might vote that Hillary is a criminal and needs to be stopped before going one step further. How? A peaceful but loud revolution against her.
Get out there and get on every command channel and expose this beast for what she is. We need to convince voters of all levels what a sham this woman is. We need to go into schools, go on TV, radio in the press and please with folks not to vote for her and why. Action is the key here. Get up off of your asses and into the public and tell them what a criminal Hillary is, There are two books written by secret Service officers who worked in the white House under the Clintons who will tell you what a psychotic asshole Hillary is. There are more books: “ “Blood feud”, “Clinton Cash”, Clintons War on Women”, “Absolute Power”, “Hillary: A History of Scandal, Corruption..” and ten more that are all trying to expose these people. Not to mention a new movie coming out in July “Hillary’s America”.
Trust is the key to potential Hillary voters. People who vote for Hillary will mainly vote for her because she is a woman. This is as shallow as it goes. But people have left her camp because they don’t trust her because of the multiple FBI investigations and this is the button to push. “Who wants to vote for someone who has several ongoing FBI investigations going on her?”
Please, start now. Get out there and Communicate!!”
Gee. How come he didn't say: "...the presumptive Democratic candidate with honesty and corruption issues a 79% chance of winning the White House come November..."
One can only wonder why he worded it as he did. Just wondering...
Since we are using probability, I will add, there is a 100% chance this guy is an asshole.
Nate Silver like yours truly, is playing it safe.
No one wants to bet on the dark horse.
Of course, there is always the chance the odds might flip.
Nate Silver in the Fall of 2015:
“In Silver’s telling, Trump’s abrasive, attention-getting rhetoric was serving to make the primary a “referendum” on Trump,”
Isn’t that what the MSM is telling us now...that the election will be a referendum on Trump...he didn’t lose because of it in the primary, so why would he lose because of it in the general. In fact, it was probably one of the reasons he gained support.
Trump is the first Republican since Reagan whose political philosophy is something other than, “Hey! It’s Republicans’ turn at the trough!”
He may have been right in earlier races, but he was badly off in the primaries this year.
Limbaugh says Silver’s been wrong about Trump 7 times already.
didn’t Silver admit that he was all wrong about Trump during the primaries and that he had let his anti-Trump bias color his predictions?
7-10% half-time lead? yeah right. Hillary might indeed win but it has less to do with real voters and more to do with fraud. Presidential elections are usually determined by a handful of states. Dems usually run the big cities in those key states.
Wonder if Nate is willing to put his wallet where his mouth is?
Nate Silver was wrong about North Carolina in 2008. He had McCain winning the state, but it went to Obama.
Nate Silver lost any credibility he had by being wrong on North Carolina.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.
A few weeks ago, as Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Nate Silver admitted that his data-driven site, FiveThirtyEight, “got the Republican race wrong.”
Silver’s post, which was discussed here, was something of a mea culpa. But it pointed to a slew of external factors ostensibly out of Silver’s control and which he rationally could not have predicted. (The short of it, according to Silver, was that three assumptions had gone wrong.)
But in a new post on FiveThirtyEight on Wednesday, Silver seemed to admit that — despite the fact that Trump’s rise to the Republican nomination was a highly unprecedented event — something did, in fact, go wrong.
“We didn’t just get unlucky,” Silver writes. “We made a big mistake, along with a couple of marginal ones.”
The mistake? Here’s what Silver said (emphasis added):
The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we sometimes called ”subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates. And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all the other pundit-barbarians, randomly setting fire to things.
Silver proceeded to break down the issue into five parts, in his words:
Our early forecasts of Trump’s nomination chances weren’t based on a statistical model, which may have been most of the problem.
Trump’s nomination is just one event, and that makes it hard to judge the accuracy of a probabilistic forecast.
The historical evidence clearly suggested that Trump was an underdog, but the sample size probably wasn’t large enough to assign him quite so low a probability of winning.
Trump’s nomination is potentially a point in favor of “polls-only” as opposed to “fundamentals” models.
There’s a danger in hindsight bias, and in overcorrecting after an unexpected event such as Trump’s nomination.
The post is long (and worth reading) and goes into depth on each of the above facets of the story.
In the first three points, Silver outlined what he suggested may have been his biggest mistake (failing to build a statistical model earlier and instead relying on what he calls “educated guesses”). He also ruminated on the difficulty of assessing the scale of the predictive failure of misreading the Trump phenomenon and reanalyzed Trump’s electability in terms of the admittedly small historical precedent.
In the second of those points, Silver remained a bit defensive of the process. He discussed the notion of a model’s calibration — effectively, is the model correct about as often as it thinks it should be? — and the difficulty of assessing a true predictive failure for a single event.
But he concluded on the side of self-critique: “Still, I think our early forecasts were overconfident ...”
In the fourth section, Silver discussed how the case of Trump could be an argument for adjusting the methodology of FiveThirtyEight’s analyses. And in the fifth, he cautioned against overcorrecting too much just because so many people got Trump wrong.
Herman Cain, one of the candidates for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential race.
Silver wrote about how he criticized “experts” for being so sour on Herman Cain in the 2012 election.
At the time, he wrote (emphasis Silver’s): “Experts have a poor understanding of uncertainty. Usually, this manifests itself in the form of overconfidence: experts underestimate the likelihood that their predictions might be wrong.” A month later, Cain dropped out amid accusations of sexual harassment.
When Trump came along in 2015, Silver said he “over-learned” his lesson.
“I’d turn out to be the overconfident expert, making pretty much exactly the mistakes I’d accused my critics of four years earlier,” he wrote.
Looking forward, he said there is a risk that the political commentariat might make the same mistake again, thinking that the next “Trumpian” candidate has better-than-realistic chances simply because Trump succeeded.
“Still,” he concluded, “it’s probably helpful to have a case like Trump in our collective memories. It’s a reminder that we live in an uncertain world and that both rigor and humility are needed when trying to make sense of it.”
Freakishly accurate?
He gave Trump a 5% chance of winning the nomination. Not exactly “freakishly accurate”.
I hear this doof had access to Obama’s internal polling in 2008 and 2012.
That’s why he was so “accurate”.