Let's all laugh at Nate Silver

[Anonymous]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

99% chance of victory

[Anonymous]

No thanks. Nate's right 99% of the time, and often when other pundits are wrong. And Bernie only won by 1%--a race that close is really hard to predict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No thanks. Nate's right 99% of the time, and often when other pundits are wrong. And Bernie only won by 1%--a race that close is really hard to predict.

It wouldn't have a confidence level of 99% be assigned to it then by the 'guru'.

[Anonymous]

What's wrong with you? It will be interesting to figure out why the modeling was wrong, but I see no reason to laugh at a person who is very good at his job and adds much intelligent insight into public understanding of complex issues.

[Anonymous]

Given that every poll had Clinton up double digits and many were 20+ margins, I don't think Nate messed up so much as there was a massive polling failure. He analyzes polls and they all uniformly got this one wrong. In South Carolina, the polling average underestimated her margin by 20+ but there was one poll that got it right. The closest poll this time still had Sanders losing by 10.

[Anonymous]

I wish Nate were wrong about Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

99% chance of victory

It says a lot about you that your first impulse is to "laugh" at someone in a circumstance like this. None of it good.

What was your childhood trauma? Because what an immature post. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish Nate were wrong about Trump.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/nate_silver_said_donald_trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

99% chance of victory

This is why people think Sanders supporters are jerks. You do realize he doesn't do the polling himself, right?

[Anonymous]

Nate is still smarter than 99% of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that every poll had Clinton up double digits and many were 20+ margins, I don't think Nate messed up so much as there was a massive polling failure. He analyzes polls and they all uniformly got this one wrong. In South Carolina, the polling average underestimated her margin by 20+ but there was one poll that got it right. The closest poll this time still had Sanders losing by 10.

np. He's supposed to be analyzing the quality of the polls, not just averaging everything he can Google. Anyone can do the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish Nate were wrong about Trump.

What does he say about Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No thanks. Nate's right 99% of the time, and often when other pundits are wrong. And Bernie only won by 1%--a race that close is really hard to predict.

It wouldn't have a confidence level of 99% be assigned to it then by the 'guru'.

Let's all laugh at your knowledge of statistics.

A 99% confidence level means that for every 100 such predictions, he expects to be wrong once.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

If anyone can do it, maybe you can post your predictions for the next four primaries.