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.
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'.
Anonymous wrote:I wish Nate were wrong about Trump.
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.
Anonymous wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/
99% chance of victory![]()
Anonymous wrote:I wish Nate were wrong about Trump.
Anonymous wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/
99% chance of victory![]()
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.