Nate Silver Say... Everything Nate Silver goes here

[Dr.House]

What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.

Yes, but can you be leftist enough to get the NYSlimes to sponsor you?

Don't forget to change your model a couple of days before the election to "appear" accurate...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What's so special about Silver? .

people in his field are wowed by him?




what a douche you are

---

Rational Irrationality : The New Yorker

At the local level, some of the battlegrounds have now broken firmly in one direction or another, effectively narrowing the race to eight states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Wisconsin. On The New Yorker’s electoral map, I am making three changes to reflect this. I am changing Michigan and Pennsylvania from leaning Obama to firm Obama, and I am changing North Carolina from leaning Romney to firm Romney. In all three of these states, the polls indicate that one of the candidates is now ahead by four points or more.

Of the remaining eight battlegrounds, I have one state leaning to Romney (Florida); four leaning to Obama (Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin); and three as toss-ups (Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia). I considered moving Virginia to Romney’s column, but decided against it. In the past few days, two polls have shown the race tied. And both of them have come from polling organizations that tend to lean a bit to the Republicans: Gravis Marketing and Purple Strategies. For Romney to reach two hundred and seventy electoral-college votes, he simply has to carry Virginia, as well as Florida and North Carolina. The fact that the race is still so tight there will be a big concern to Boston.

Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker

In the electoral college, I still have Obama with 277 votes and Romney with 235. Assuming the G.O.P. man does win Virginia, that takes him to 248, leaving him needing another 22 votes. Thats’s where the fun starts.

Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker

October 24, 2012
Brooks vs. Silver: The Limits of Forecasting Elections
Posted by John Cassidy

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...te-silver-prediction-polls.html#ixzz2AiZDNYe6


As op-ed columnists often do, Brooks overstates his case. Up to a point, political outcomes are predictable. Sitting here today, I can forecast with certainty that neither candidate will win the popular vote by more than ten percentage points. History and common sense tells us this. Indeed, based on the opinion polls, I can predict with a good deal of confidence that neither candidate will win by more than five points. Voting patterns aren’t completely random. They reflect history, demography, sociology, economics—fundamental relationships exist that statisticians can, in principle, attempt to capture and turn into mathematical equations.

Unfortunately for forecasters, people aren’t interested in rough predictions, such as “it’s going to be close.” Especially in a tight contest, such as this year’s, they want to know who is going to win. And when it comes to answering this question, voting models based on fundamental factors don’t work very well. Years ago, I got interested in the work of Ray Fair, a Yale economist who pioneered the development of forecasting elections based upon a few simple economic statistics, such as G.D.P. growth, inflation, and unemployment. Fair’s record is mixed. He’s called most elections correctly, but he’s also got some wrong, notably 1992, when he predicted a Republican victory, and 2000, when he said that the Democrats would win. (In 2000, to give Fair his due, he correctly predicted that the Democrats would win the popular vote, which they did. But Al Gore lost the election in the electoral college.)

According to one expert who has looked closely at the record, “The ‘fundamentals’ models, in fact, have had almost no predictive power at all. Over this 16-year period, there has been no relationship between the vote they forecast for the incumbent candidate and how well he actually did—even though some of them claimed to explain as much as 90 percent of voting results.” The expert who wrote these words was Silver. If you want to learn about why most political predictions turn out to be wrong, I thoroughly recommend some of the posts he has written on the subject. And if you’ve got time, you should also consider reading his new book—“The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail But Some Don’t,” which is largely devoted to the limits of forecasting in areas such as sports, finance, and business—as well as politics.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...te-silver-prediction-polls.html#ixzz2AiZ3nTDK

 

[jillian]

What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.

except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Who the fuck is this nate dude all the libs are slobbering over?

 

[Dr.House]

Who the fuck is this nate dude all the libs are slobbering over?

A baseball statistician who is over his head in politics....

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times – Telegraph Blogs

1. Nate isn’t very good at calling close elections.
2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and “stuff happens.”

 

[jillian]

over his head?

he was dead on last time.

is that what you mean by 'over his head'?



i'll also remind you of my favorite ever thing that i learned in statistics and the only thing i remember. and that's if something actually occurs, then probability becomes 100%. So under any paradigm where the president has a 70% chance of a win and a 30% chance of a loss... there's still a little less than a 1 in 3 chance that he actually loses.

at which point romney's chances of winning become 100%.

so there ya go.

what i do believe is that the models he uses have been extraordinarily accurate which is why he's massively respected.

again, though.. i understand why people on the right like dismissing him. they have no basis for doing so, but there's not a lot else they can do with his numbers...

except point to the one rasmussen outlier.

 

[jillian]

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times – Telegraph Blogs

1. Nate isn’t very good at calling close elections.
2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and “stuff happens.”

well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.

 

[The Rabbi]

What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.

except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*

Yes he did a great job calling sports events.
An election is not a sports event. He has his head up his ass and will receive the Election Chief Dim Bulb award on Nov 7.

 

[Leweman]

What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.

except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*

maybe respected by dems because believing him is all they have to cling too even though he is wrong . He's been around for how long now? That university of Colorado study has been right every time since 1980 but that is ignored by Dems today for some reason in favor or Silvers subjectively random selection of polls and random method of weighting them. I'm sure to him it make sense because it gives the outcome he wants.

2012 election: why Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com might be wrong and Romney might be doing better than Silver thinks - PointOfLaw Forum

True, he catapulted to national attention by "correctly predicting" 49 out of 50 states presidential electoral outcomes in 2008. Nicely done. But not nearly as nicely as the number looks at a first glance. You could have predicted the outcomes of about 40 states without any need for polling data. News flash: most states aren't "in play" for president. Still, 9 out of 10 is pretty impressive, but I could have done it by simply guessing that Barack Obama would basically run the table in the swing states - and really, did you really need polling data to know that after McCain and Palin showed us who they were? Seriously, no "calculus" needed.

Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States | The People's View

 

[AceRothstein]

I didn't see anyone on the right having a problem with Silver in 2010 when he predicted the GOP gaining 7 seats in the Senate and 54 in the House. He was off 1 in the Senate (change of 6) and 8 in the House (change of 63). The difference in the House can be attributed to the lack of polls for all House races and most of the bigger pollsters not really focusing on individual House races, there are 435 of them after all.

I don't think people realize he just takes the actual polls and puts them into a model to get his numbers. He doesn't do any polling on his own.

 

[AceRothstein]

What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.

except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*

maybe respected by dems because believing him is all they have to cling too even though he is wrong . He's been around for how long now? That university of Colorado study has been right every time since 1980 but that is ignored by Dems today for some reason in favor or Silvers subjectively random selection of polls and random method of weighting them. I'm sure to him it make sense because it gives the outcome he wants.

2012 election: why Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com might be wrong and Romney might be doing better than Silver thinks - PointOfLaw Forum

True, he catapulted to national attention by "correctly predicting" 49 out of 50 states presidential electoral outcomes in 2008. Nicely done. But not nearly as nicely as the number looks at a first glance. You could have predicted the outcomes of about 40 states without any need for polling data. News flash: most states aren't "in play" for president. Still, 9 out of 10 is pretty impressive, but I could have done it by simply guessing that Barack Obama would basically run the table in the swing states - and really, did you really need polling data to know that after McCain and Palin showed us who they were? Seriously, no "calculus" needed.

Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States | The People's View

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right? Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.

 

[Leweman]

except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*

maybe respected by dems because believing him is all they have to cling too even though he is wrong . He's been around for how long now? That university of Colorado study has been right every time since 1980 but that is ignored by Dems today for some reason in favor or Silvers subjectively random selection of polls and random method of weighting them. I'm sure to him it make sense because it gives the outcome he wants.

2012 election: why Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com might be wrong and Romney might be doing better than Silver thinks - PointOfLaw Forum

True, he catapulted to national attention by "correctly predicting" 49 out of 50 states presidential electoral outcomes in 2008. Nicely done. But not nearly as nicely as the number looks at a first glance. You could have predicted the outcomes of about 40 states without any need for polling data. News flash: most states aren't "in play" for president. Still, 9 out of 10 is pretty impressive, but I could have done it by simply guessing that Barack Obama would basically run the table in the swing states - and really, did you really need polling data to know that after McCain and Palin showed us who they were? Seriously, no "calculus" needed.

Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States | The People's View

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right? Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.

Do prove it

 

[AceRothstein]

maybe respected by dems because believing him is all they have to cling too even though he is wrong . He's been around for how long now? That university of Colorado study has been right every time since 1980 but that is ignored by Dems today for some reason in favor or Silvers subjectively random selection of polls and random method of weighting them. I'm sure to him it make sense because it gives the outcome he wants.

2012 election: why Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com might be wrong and Romney might be doing better than Silver thinks - PointOfLaw Forum

True, he catapulted to national attention by "correctly predicting" 49 out of 50 states presidential electoral outcomes in 2008. Nicely done. But not nearly as nicely as the number looks at a first glance. You could have predicted the outcomes of about 40 states without any need for polling data. News flash: most states aren't "in play" for president. Still, 9 out of 10 is pretty impressive, but I could have done it by simply guessing that Barack Obama would basically run the table in the swing states - and really, did you really need polling data to know that after McCain and Palin showed us who they were? Seriously, no "calculus" needed.

Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States | The People's View

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right? Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.

Do prove it

I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times. I'll even provide a righty news source for you.

Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com

I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: "Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections."

 

[Sarah G]

We're going to be watching the election, waiting for Virginia and Ohio, just like 2008. We'll hear them call it for Obama and we'll know he's the winner.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.

except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*

Yes he did a great job calling sports events.
An election is not a sports event. He has his head up his ass and will receive the Election Chief Dim Bulb award on Nov 7.

yeah, sports are unlike elections, but Business is like Government. okay

Statistical models.

 

[Liability]

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times – Telegraph Blogs

1. Nate isn’t very good at calling close elections.
2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and “stuff happens.”

well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.

Actually, if any person or entity says that Nate is partisan based on facts, then it's the facts that make it or break it.

 

[Dr.House]

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times – Telegraph Blogs

1. Nate isn’t very good at calling close elections.
2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and “stuff happens.”

well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.

That blog backs up Nates failings with facts....

(Nate is a blog, BTW... )

I understand why the libs like nate... He's feeding you what you want to hear...

His models are off, his weighting is off, and he's selective on the polls he "accepts"...

Sorry, Nate is a hack...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right? Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.

Do prove it

I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times. I'll even provide a righty news source for you.

Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com

I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: "Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections."

Ace, you don't get IT. Most cons here are lost in arguments that stray too far from doctrine. Post here long enough and you'll hopefully get it,.

There are some here who are genuinely interested in things...I am not sure L is. could be wrong, but...by their actions they will be judged

 

[Dr.House]

What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.

except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*

Yes he did a great job calling sports events.
An election is not a sports event. He has his head up his ass and will receive the Election Chief Dim Bulb award on Nov 7.

Watch Nate magically change his model in the final few days before the election...

 

[Liability]

^Dainty cannot dispute the analysis of Nate's failings, so he ignores it and pretends that it is the conservaives who ignore reality.



Dainty is such a transparent little fraud.