Nate Silver just dropped bombshell tweet

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

November 4th, 2012, 2:30 pm
hwyflier

The United States ranks 25th of 30 OECD countries in mathematics literacy.

Just you know, sayin'.
November 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm
Republican-Jedi

God this country is going to implode if Romney wins.

:flag:
November 4th, 2012, 2:32 pm
slick_trip

Quote:

Originally Posted by gattaca

cowboy,

nate silver isnt a pollster but hes TAKING polls from PPP top number and using that as the foundation of his model. To move 1 point in turnout and have it drop 70 points isa bascailly something me and you could perdict.

hes model basicaly sais this
IF obama turns out by 1 point obama wins
IF romney turns out by 1 point romney wins.

it would be entirely fair to state that someone who hasn't read silver's blog consistently over the last several weeks would be entirely confused about his modeling and very likely to be completely wrong in their opinion of nate's numbers.

that someone may likely be very be willing to bloviate about how the numbers bother them...
November 4th, 2012, 2:33 pm
JerryN

The only 'poll' I have been watching is InTrade - because its based on MONEY, not casual answers to random calls.

InTrade still has Obama ahead 65-35, winning OH by 67-33 and losing FL 35-65.

BUT - the popular vote being 0.5% or more is much closer, with Obama ahead 58-39.
Looks like the bettors see it as VERY close.
November 4th, 2012, 2:33 pm
politicsoverload

Karl rove on Fox News election night 2008 in first hour of coverage: "these numbers don't look good for Obama"
November 4th, 2012, 2:35 pm
Amused Observer

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoleUK

When the unskewedpolls website founder says: “Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the ‘Mr. New Castrati’ voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program,”

Yeah. Illuminating :mrgreen:.

I wonder how much we'll hear from Dean Chambers post-election? My guess is not much - he'll crawl under some virtual rock - until the next election cycle. Then he'll rise from the ashes hoping that, in some Dick Morris-like fashion, people will have forgotten how horribly wrong he was in the past.
November 4th, 2012, 2:37 pm
freemind

Quote:

Originally Posted by margaretms

If Romney wins, we'll get lots of information about Silver's model and plenty of self-criticism--what it may not have taken into account, what assumptions may have been off, etc. He's been explaining much of this with remarkable clarity, judiciousness, and circumspection as he's gone along (Sam Wang has done the same thing). In contrast, if Romney loses, ye olde timey pundits who predicted his victory-with their hunches, fake conventional wisdom, unearned certitude, unexamined biases, conflicts of interest, motivated reasoning, and crappy pre-chewed bromides--will be on cable the next day with a ratty sack of insight-free excuses (and in Karl Rove's case, a giant sack of Rightwing cash). Then, almost immediately, they'll start making more predictions with impunity.

Best post in this thread so far.
November 4th, 2012, 2:38 pm
gattaca

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicsoverload

Karl rove on Fox News election night 2008 in first hour of coverage: "these numbers don't look good for Obama"

rove perdicted a obama win in 2008.. stop making ******** up
November 4th, 2012, 2:44 pm
DougBH

Quote:

Originally Posted by gattaca

rove perdicted a obama win in 2008.. stop making ******** up

As did Rasmussen. You would never get that from the posts made here.
November 4th, 2012, 2:45 pm
JimmyC123

Quote:

Originally Posted by gattaca

rove perdicted a obama win in 2008.. stop making ******** up

You are correct. And he based his prediction on what the polls said.

PS - I really hate to play spelling cop, and maybe you are doing it intentionally for some reason, but it is "predicted".
November 4th, 2012, 2:46 pm
gattaca

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyC123

You are correct. And he based his prediction on what the polls said.

PS - I really hate to play spelling cop, and maybe you are doing it intentionally for some reason, but it is "predicted".

im dyslexic =( and i have bad adhd.. and short attention span..
November 4th, 2012, 2:47 pm
JimmyC123

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougBH

As did Rasmussen. You would never get that from the posts made here.

Rasmussen's national poll came pretty close in 2008. He underestimated Obama's results in many of the key swing states, though.
November 4th, 2012, 2:47 pm
LLStarks

Quote:

Originally Posted by gattaca

rove,
michael barone,
george will,

and a **** ton of math wiz on our side like jay cost and adrian gray and others? okay you take him.. ill take people who actaully ran campaigns.

How can you put so much faith in hyperpartisan models where the methodology is secret?

Rove is notorious for pulling things out of his ass.

Nate has his numbers and methodology visible for anyone to see on the front page and if you feel so inclined, you can look at his pre-NYT site methodologies too if you dig around. The old site still exists.
November 4th, 2012, 2:48 pm
IndyBec

Nate Silver is merely stating probabilities based on models. He cannot gaurantee his results. His entire model of % chance of winning is already butt-covering.

Remember that unlikely things still happen everyday--nobody really knows what will happen in two days.

Vote.
November 4th, 2012, 2:48 pm
JimmyC123

Quote:

Originally Posted by gattaca

im dyslexic =( and i have bad adhd.. and short attention span..

My apologies, then.
November 4th, 2012, 2:49 pm
southernmoderate

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyC123

Rasmussen's national poll came pretty close in 2008. He underestimated Obama's results in many of the key swing states, though.

Yes, they were accurate in 2008, but way off in 2010. We will know how well they did this year in 2 days.
November 4th, 2012, 2:49 pm
margaretms

Quote:

Originally Posted by hwyflier

The United States ranks 25th of 30 OECD countries in mathematics literacy.

Just you know, sayin'.

I just wish there was a teenager from Shanghai who could explain to me what the numbers you just posted mean. Do they mean that the U.S. ranks number 1?
November 4th, 2012, 2:50 pm
MoleUK

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndyBec

Nate Silver is merely stating probabilities based on models. He cannot gaurantee his results. His entire model of % chance of winning is already butt-covering.

Remember that unlikely things still happen everyday--nobody really knows what will happen in two days.

Vote.

No-one knows 100% what will happen. Nate has a pretty good record, but a stellar record is no guarantee. Ever.
November 4th, 2012, 3:03 pm
LLStarks

People like to throw stones at Nate, Cook, Princeton, TPM, RCP, etc.

But there exists no transparent election model with Romney in the lead or even winning decisively as some on this board mindlessly believe in.

Sorry folks. Gallup tracking averages and gut feelings are not an election model.
November 4th, 2012, 3:03 pm
PRSPlayer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy_Bob

liberal math maybe..

but not logical math..

Use your Nancy Pelosi calculator, it has Obama up +5 in every state.
November 4th, 2012, 3:08 pm
NDmoderate

I've heard there are two schools of thought on polling right now. The Dems and some pollsters(PPP, Marist, NYT) see a turnout similar to 2008 while the GOP and other pollsters(Rasmussen, Gallup, Pew) see a whiter and older electorate in 2012. The person who runs Quinnipiac's polling said he wasn't sure which model is right and we won't know until Wednesday morning.
November 4th, 2012, 3:12 pm
Billy_Bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by margaretms

I just wish there was a teenager from Shanghai who could explain to me what the numbers you just posted mean. Do they mean that the U.S. ranks number 1?

It means the liberal school system here is failing miserably.. Thank Democrats and unions for that..
November 4th, 2012, 3:13 pm
wonderingrover

I'm going to go ahead and predict a greater than 50% chance of either Romney or Obama winning - with a 3% margin of error.......

;)
November 4th, 2012, 3:14 pm
Billy_Bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by NDmoderate

I've heard there are two schools of though on polling right now. The Dems and some pollsters(PPP, Marist, NYT) see a turnout similar to 2008 while the GOP and other pollsters(Rasmussen, Gallup, Pew) see a whiter and older electorate in 2012. The person who runs Quinnipiac's polling said he wasn't sure which model is right and we won't know until Wednesday morning.

And the difference is D+4 or R+3..... the words TOSS UP come to mind and GO VOTE...
November 4th, 2012, 3:15 pm
Billy_Bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonderingrover

I'm going to go ahead and predict a greater than 50% chance of either Romney or Obama winning - with a 3% margin of error.......

;)

:)):clap::flag:

shoot.. you should be a pollster...
November 4th, 2012, 3:16 pm
Conan

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyC123

My apologies, then.

It was lame attempt to insult ones intelligence.

If you're really sorry maybe you should learn more about those with dyslexic. ;)
November 4th, 2012, 3:21 pm
JimmyC123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

It was lame attempt to insult ones intelligence.

If you're really sorry maybe you should learn more about those with dyslexic. ;)

That was not my intent, at all. I never pull the "you misspelled a word so your point is moot" card. I pointed it out because he has consistently spelled it wrong, so it was not just a typo.

By the way, it is "one's intelligence" :razz:
November 4th, 2012, 3:36 pm
theDoctorIsIn

Quote:

Originally Posted by gattaca

cowboy,

nate silver isnt a pollster but hes TAKING polls from PPP top number and using that as the foundation of his model. To move 1 point in turnout and have it drop 70 points isa bascailly something me and you could perdict.

hes model basicaly sais this
IF obama turns out by 1 point obama wins
IF romney turns out by 1 point romney wins.

I don't know where you're getting "turn out" from this.

He's talking popular vote vs. electoral college.
November 4th, 2012, 4:47 pm
IndyBec

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoleUK

No-one knows 100% what will happen. Nate has a pretty good record, but a stellar record is no guarantee. Ever.

Silver has a relatively short record and unproven modelling algorythms. In fact, it would take many generations to to prove or disprove their accuracy.
November 4th, 2012, 4:52 pm
freemind

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndyBec

Silver has a relatively short record and unproven modelling algorythms. In fact, it would take many generations to to prove or disprove their accuracy.

He is a very knowledgable statistician, though. Before political forecasting, he was involved in sabremetrics and the system he developed to forecast Major League baseball performance has been very successful and highly accurate.
November 4th, 2012, 4:53 pm
gattaca

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyC123

That was not my intent, at all. I never pull the "you misspelled a word so your point is moot" card. I pointed it out because he has consistently spelled it wrong, so it was not just a typo.

By the way, it is "one's intelligence" :razz:

jimmy no insult taken at all. we joined around the same time and im glad your still around =)

i would wish you luck on NOV 6.. BUT I REALLY REALLY want to win hehe
November 4th, 2012, 4:55 pm
dad49er

Quote:

Originally Posted by gattaca

rove,
michael barone,
george will,

and a **** ton of math wiz on our side like jay cost and adrian gray and others? okay you take him.. ill take people who actaully ran campaigns.

One doesn't necessarily correlate into expertise into the other.

How good are football coaches at predicting outcomes?

How good would a handicapper be at coaching a team?
November 4th, 2012, 4:57 pm
MoleUK

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndyBec

Silver has a relatively short record and unproven modelling algorythms. In fact, it would take many generations to to prove or disprove their accuracy.

Compared to other electoral models? He's a veteran. Does that make him right? No. Being a bit of a data nerd, I will love to see how it all turns out, regardless of the result.

But if you're matching him up against Dick Morris? I know who i'll be putting money up against :mrgreen:.

And Rove? Rove has his PAC.

Anyway, I will be staying up all night to see how the models/pundits compare regardless.
November 4th, 2012, 4:58 pm
JimmyC123

Quote:

Originally Posted by gattaca

jimmy no insult taken at all. we joined around the same time and im glad your still around =)

i would wish you luck on NOV 6.. BUT I REALLY REALLY want to win hehe

Thanks, Gattaca. While I disagree with many here I try to be respectful of all (OK, most...:) ). I appreciate your enthusiasm and your threads definitely generate interest!
November 4th, 2012, 4:59 pm
IndyBec

Quote:

Originally Posted by freemind

He is a very knowledgable statistician, though. Before political forecasting, he was involved in sabremetrics and the system he developed to forecast Major League baseball performance has been very successful and highly accurate.

Accurate is the word. It implies relativeness and fallibility.
November 4th, 2012, 5:02 pm
freemind

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndyBec

Accurate is the word. It implies relativeness and fallibility.

No prediction model is 100 percent. Some are more accurate than others.
November 4th, 2012, 5:03 pm
IndyBec

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoleUK

Compared to other electoral models? He's a veteran. Does that make him right? No. Being a bit of a data nerd, I will love to see how it all turns out, regardless of the result.

But if you're matching him up against Dick Morris? I know who i'll be putting money up against :mrgreen:.

And Rove? Rove has his PAC.

Anyway, I will be staying up all night to see how the models/pundits compare regardless.

I have always said the poll that matters is on November 6th. Silver is credentialed, but if we're looking at one outcome, any other person could beat him. Supposedly his expertise makes him more accurate over a series of outcomes compared to others.

Even then, statistics are only as good as the data they collect, and the data in this case is not the votes that count.

We will see.
November 4th, 2012, 5:05 pm
hailreagan

He is also an Obama supporter who covers all of his bases.

His "winning streak" is not all that impressive.

I think his goal is to stifle Repub. enthusiasm.
November 4th, 2012, 5:07 pm
JimmyC123

Quote:

Originally Posted by hailreagan

He is also an Obama supporter who covers all of his bases.

His "winning streak" is not all that impressive.

I think his goal is to stifle Repub. enthusiasm.

He didn't do that in 2010. He had Reps making gains in the house and senate.
November 4th, 2012, 5:10 pm
gattaca

Quote:

Originally Posted by hailreagan

He is also an Obama supporter who covers all of his bases.

His "winning streak" is not all that impressive.

I think his goal is to stifle Repub. enthusiasm.

a lot of poeple dont know this but hes a democrat. and in 2008 he coordinated the polls with the obama campaign. basically obama campaign kept feeding him internal numbers and made him sign a conf agreement. hes a liberal hack thru and thru.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 4:14 am.