Nate Silver- only 10% chance Trump wins

[dblack]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

On the flip side, as a life-long board gamer - I'd be very nervous about rolling those dice if the outcome had vital consequences.

You wouldn’t play Russian Roulette for instance.

But this is an election. We have one every two years.

I'm just saying 10% is a very real chance of winning. Nothing to be dismissed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

On the flip side, as a life-long board gamer - I'd be very nervous about rolling those dice if the outcome had vital consequences.

You wouldn’t play Russian Roulette for instance.

But this is an election. We have one every two years.

I'm just saying 10% is a very real chance of winning. Nothing to be dismissed.

Yes it is. Congratulations.

 

[BlackSand]

Nate Silver, boy genius and favorite poll forecaster of the unhinged left, gives Trump only a 1 in 10 chance of winning. I guess he didn't learn a thing from his blown forecast in 2016......Maybe he uses the same model that Fauci used to forecast the Wu-Flu deaths?

View attachment 409795

You mean like them running the simulation 40,000 times to come up with the 100 sample population they wanted to express?

.

 

[Zander]

Nate Silver, boy genius and favorite poll forecaster of the unhinged left, gives Trump only a 1 in 10 chance of winning. I guess he didn't learn a thing from his blown forecast in 2016......Maybe he uses the same model that Fauci used to forecast the Wu-Flu deaths?

Hey idiot, in 2016 his forecast gave Trump a 36% of winning the election. That doesn’t translate into “Hillary will win!” Just because that probability was low end, it doesn’t mean Hillary had a lock on it. Now in 2020, he still doesn’t use the language “Biden WILL win!”. You idiots just don’t understand the concept of probabilities I guess.

Hey idiot, his forecast was not 36%...it was 28.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

PS- before you start calling other people "idiots" you should at least have your facts right.

 

[Billy000]

Nate Silver, boy genius and favorite poll forecaster of the unhinged left, gives Trump only a 1 in 10 chance of winning. I guess he didn't learn a thing from his blown forecast in 2016......Maybe he uses the same model that Fauci used to forecast the Wu-Flu deaths?

Hey idiot, in 2016 his forecast gave Trump a 36% of winning the election. That doesn’t translate into “Hillary will win!” Just because that probability was low end, it doesn’t mean Hillary had a lock on it. Now in 2020, he still doesn’t use the language “Biden WILL win!”. You idiots just don’t understand the concept of probabilities I guess.

Hey idiot, his forecast was not 36%...it was 28.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

PS- before you start calling other people "idiots" you should at least have your facts right.

Lol you idiots will take any victory you can get huh? 28% is still nothing to sneeze at idiot. And again, he never used the language “Hillary will win!”. That isn’t how probabilities work.

 

[Missourian]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

Polling models and climate models...what do they have in common?

GIGO...

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

[Toro]

I'm just saying 10% is a very real chance of winning. Nothing to be dismissed.

Oh absolutely. I completely agree with you.

 

[Zander]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

On the flip side, as a life-long board gamer - I'd be very nervous about rolling those dice if the outcome had vital consequences.

You wouldn’t play Russian Roulette for instance.

But this is an election. We have one every two years.

Trump changes the polling dynamic. That is what you don't seem to understand.

That's not what the LWNJ's want to hear.

They seek comfort to overcome their own eyes as they watch Trump draw crowds of tens of thousands, and Bejing Biden drawing tens.

These are the kind of people that drive around alone in their cars with masks on......

 

[Zander]

Nate Silver, boy genius and favorite poll forecaster of the unhinged left, gives Trump only a 1 in 10 chance of winning. I guess he didn't learn a thing from his blown forecast in 2016......Maybe he uses the same model that Fauci used to forecast the Wu-Flu deaths?

Hey idiot, in 2016 his forecast gave Trump a 36% of winning the election. That doesn’t translate into “Hillary will win!” Just because that probability was low end, it doesn’t mean Hillary had a lock on it. Now in 2020, he still doesn’t use the language “Biden WILL win!”. You idiots just don’t understand the concept of probabilities I guess.

Hey idiot, his forecast was not 36%...it was 28.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

PS- before you start calling other people "idiots" you should at least have your facts right.

Lol you idiots will take any victory you can get huh? 28% is still nothing to sneeze at idiot. And again, he never used the language “Hillary will win!”. That isn’t how probabilities work.

Nobody said he guaranteed a HiLIARy victory. Are you in a different thread, or just willfully stupid?

 

[Orangecat]

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

That's incorrect. Being a ten point underdog just means you are predicted to be beaten by 10 points, not that you have a 10% chance of winning. Tighten up, fool.

 

[Toro]

Poll models and climate models = GIGO...

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

In 2004, polls predicted Bush would win. Polls were right.

In 2006, polls predicted Democrats would win in the midterm elections. Polls were right.

In 2008, polls predicted Obama would win. Polls were right.

In 2010, polls predicted Republicans would make big gains in the midterm elections. Polls were right.

In 2012, polls predicted Obama would win. Polls were right. "Unskewed polls." Remember that?

In 2016, polls predicted Hillary would win. Polls were right about the national vote. They were wrong at the state level in three states where Trump won by 1%< of the electorate. District polls were showing a shift to Trump. District polls were right.

In 2018, polls predicted Republicans would get crushed in the House and pick up a few seats in the Senate. Polls were right.

 

[Billy000]

Nate Silver, boy genius and favorite poll forecaster of the unhinged left, gives Trump only a 1 in 10 chance of winning. I guess he didn't learn a thing from his blown forecast in 2016......Maybe he uses the same model that Fauci used to forecast the Wu-Flu deaths?

Hey idiot, in 2016 his forecast gave Trump a 36% of winning the election. That doesn’t translate into “Hillary will win!” Just because that probability was low end, it doesn’t mean Hillary had a lock on it. Now in 2020, he still doesn’t use the language “Biden WILL win!”. You idiots just don’t understand the concept of probabilities I guess.

Hey idiot, his forecast was not 36%...it was 28.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

PS- before you start calling other people "idiots" you should at least have your facts right.

Lol you idiots will take any victory you can get huh? 28% is still nothing to sneeze at idiot. And again, he never used the language “Hillary will win!”. That isn’t how probabilities work.

Nobody said he guaranteed a HiLIARy victory. Are you in a different thread, or just willfully stupid?

Yes thank you for proving my point. Your entire thread is stupid.

 

[Zander]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

Polling models and climate models...what do they have in common?

GIGO...

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

They are as reliable as the Pandemic models Fauci and his cronies used to destroy the world economy ....

 

[Toro]

That's incorrect. Being a ten point underdog just means you are predicted to be beaten by 10 points, not that you have a 10% chance of winning. Tighten up, fool.

I mean that a 10-point underdog has a 10% chance of winning outright.

I participate in an elimination pool where we pick the outright winner. A 10-point dog wins roughly 10% of the time.

 

[colfax_m]

That's not what the LWNJ's want to hear.

They seek comfort to overcome their own eyes as they watch Trump draw crowds of tens of thousands, and Bejing Biden drawing tens.

These are the kind of people that drive around alone in their cars with masks on......

Trump rallies are a poor substitute for data. I think you’ve convinced yourself of a greater advantage than you deserve.

 

[BlackSand]

Lol you idiots will take any victory you can get huh? 28% is still nothing to sneeze at idiot. And again, he never used the language “Hillary will win!”. That isn’t how probabilities work.

There's a 100% chance that if he just made a number up and is wrong again, it won't hurt his reputation any, and some fools will be trying to explain it.

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Nate flunked out in 2016. Now the swing states are tightening and pedo joe is worried. Has an eerily similarity to dewey declaring victory weeks before truman thumped on razor thin margins in swing states. Hoover was working hard for dewey while trying to cripple truman. The press loathed truman, approval ratings were in the mid 30's.

 

[Toro]

Trump rallies are a poor substitute for data. I think you’ve convinced yourself of a greater advantage than you deserve.

Exactly.

Intensity of support does not necessarily mean much when the intense supporter has the same votes as the less intense voter.

What matters is if the intensity represents a polling error, i.e. the pollsters are missing voters.

And there isn't much evidence this is the case.

 

[Billy000]

Lol you idiots will take any victory you can get huh? 28% is still nothing to sneeze at idiot. And again, he never used the language “Hillary will win!”. That isn’t how probabilities work.

There's a 100% chance that if he just made a number up and is wrong again, it won't hurt his reputation any, and some fools will be trying to explain it.

.

His probability was obviously based on data. He’s a statistician and you aren’t.

 

[JLW]

Nate Silver is wrong. For all I think that Biden will win, I still give Trump’s chances at 50/50.