Let's all laugh at Nate Silver

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Silver is no doubt a very, very smart guy, but he presents himself as a math guru that ignores the punditry and spin. He got Michigan enormously wrong. Anyone can do the poll of polls, it's not that hard.

Michigan is definitely a black eye for Silver, along with his predictions from the fall that Trump had no chance.

Anyone can average the polls, sure, but it takes a bit of research to do the rest of his analysis -- such as figuring our which pollsters are on point in a given election cycle, or the math wizardry he used a few years ago to completely take down a pollster as a fraud (apparently these guys decided actually sampling voters was too tough and just made up results out of whole cloth.)

The traditional punditry is more about measuring the mood of an electorate, mapping out a path to victory for each candidate, etc. Unfortunately, some media outlets want there to be a horse race even when there isn't one -- hence the breathtaking coverage of 2008 when Obama had it pretty much in the bag after the economy nearly froze up on September 15.

Even if Trump decides to turn the hate up to 12 and is running behind 58-42 most of the campaign, there will be breathless horse race coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Silver is no doubt a very, very smart guy, but he presents himself as a math guru that ignores the punditry and spin. He got Michigan enormously wrong. Anyone can do the poll of polls, it's not that hard.

Michigan is definitely a black eye for Silver, along with his predictions from the fall that Trump had no chance.

Anyone can average the polls, sure, but it takes a bit of research to do the rest of his analysis -- such as figuring our which pollsters are on point in a given election cycle, or the math wizardry he used a few years ago to completely take down a pollster as a fraud (apparently these guys decided actually sampling voters was too tough and just made up results out of whole cloth.)

The traditional punditry is more about measuring the mood of an electorate, mapping out a path to victory for each candidate, etc. Unfortunately, some media outlets want there to be a horse race even when there isn't one -- hence the breathtaking coverage of 2008 when Obama had it pretty much in the bag after the economy nearly froze up on September 15.

Even if Trump decides to turn the hate up to 12 and is running behind 58-42 most of the campaign, there will be breathless horse race coverage.

Are you somehow defending Silver re Michigan and Trump last fall? I can't really tell.

BTW, everyone, including idiots, knew that McCain was sunk in 2008.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Silver is no doubt a very, very smart guy, but he presents himself as a math guru that ignores the punditry and spin. He got Michigan enormously wrong. Anyone can do the poll of polls, it's not that hard.

Michigan is definitely a black eye for Silver, along with his predictions from the fall that Trump had no chance.

Anyone can average the polls, sure, but it takes a bit of research to do the rest of his analysis -- such as figuring our which pollsters are on point in a given election cycle, or the math wizardry he used a few years ago to completely take down a pollster as a fraud (apparently these guys decided actually sampling voters was too tough and just made up results out of whole cloth.)

The traditional punditry is more about measuring the mood of an electorate, mapping out a path to victory for each candidate, etc. Unfortunately, some media outlets want there to be a horse race even when there isn't one -- hence the breathtaking coverage of 2008 when Obama had it pretty much in the bag after the economy nearly froze up on September 15.

Even if Trump decides to turn the hate up to 12 and is running behind 58-42 most of the campaign, there will be breathless horse race coverage.

Are you somehow defending Silver re Michigan and Trump last fall? I can't really tell.

BTW, everyone, including idiots, knew that McCain was sunk in 2008.

No, I'm pointing out that the math part of what Silver doesn't cannot be replicated by anyone off the street. I'm also pointing out that most media outlets want it to be a close race regardless of who's actually ahead.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/strategic-vision-polls-exhibit-unusual/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Silver is no doubt a very, very smart guy, but he presents himself as a math guru that ignores the punditry and spin. He got Michigan enormously wrong. Anyone can do the poll of polls, it's not that hard.

Michigan is definitely a black eye for Silver, along with his predictions from the fall that Trump had no chance.

Anyone can average the polls, sure, but it takes a bit of research to do the rest of his analysis -- such as figuring our which pollsters are on point in a given election cycle, or the math wizardry he used a few years ago to completely take down a pollster as a fraud (apparently these guys decided actually sampling voters was too tough and just made up results out of whole cloth.)

The traditional punditry is more about measuring the mood of an electorate, mapping out a path to victory for each candidate, etc. Unfortunately, some media outlets want there to be a horse race even when there isn't one -- hence the breathtaking coverage of 2008 when Obama had it pretty much in the bag after the economy nearly froze up on September 15.

Even if Trump decides to turn the hate up to 12 and is running behind 58-42 most of the campaign, there will be breathless horse race coverage.

Are you somehow defending Silver re Michigan and Trump last fall? I can't really tell.

BTW, everyone, including idiots, knew that McCain was sunk in 2008.