Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Nate Silver 538

14143454647

Comments

  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 3,982
    “Biden is now raising money for a new “Biden Fight Fund,” which will finance “election protection efforts for Joe Biden and Democrats up and down the ballot,” his campaign manager says.“

    Guess I’ll need to spend a little extra on uncle joe.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,539
    “Biden is now raising money for a new “Biden Fight Fund,” which will finance “election protection efforts for Joe Biden and Democrats up and down the ballot,” his campaign manager says.“

    Guess I’ll need to spend a little extra on uncle joe.
    Yeah I'll chip in one more time.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • darwinstheorydarwinstheory LaPorte, INPosts: 4,398
    +1
    "A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,725
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,538
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 
    it's baffling
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,538
    i don't know how many times nate had to quantify with "now, trump can still very well win the election, and here's how" and people keep complaining that he didn't get it exactly right. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 39,448
    Never a doubt baby!!
    Also, FYI, once all votes are counted...PA is not gonna be too close


    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,265


    I'd really like to get these tonight so I can actually work tomorrow. 
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 3,982
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,725
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
    If you call a state 95% and then win the state by one vote,  you were right. 
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 3,982
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
    If you call a state 95% and then win the state by one vote,  you were right. 
    Their job was to characterize the election. Their job was to distinguish for us the good polls vs the bad ones. They were wrong. Again. On a catastrophic level. They could have kept a few thousand voters home in key states.

    Let’s just be civil and agree to disagree. I’ll be careful to refrain from replying to your supportive 538 comments, if any.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 7,761
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
    If you call a state 95% and then win the state by one vote,  you were right. 
    Their job was to characterize the election. Their job was to distinguish for us the good polls vs the bad ones. They were wrong. Again. On a catastrophic level. They could have kept a few thousand voters home in key states.

    Let’s just be civil and agree to disagree. I’ll be careful to refrain from replying to your supportive 538 comments, if any.
    If people didn't learn anything from staying home in '16, or any other election, than that's on them. Personally, I don't know of anyone who looked at the polls and thought it was in the bag.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,461
    edited November 2020
    EDIT: Original post was unrelated and in wrong thread. I will repost that in the proper one.  

    I will just say - Nate Silver and 538 is dead.  Picking the winner when you're a statistical modeler but being off by 15% is not a win. I mean without doing research, the most likely outcome of this election was Biden winning.  An infant could have done that.
    Post edited by EdsonNascimento on
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 14,941
    So the polls were wrong but what can the exit polls tell us about why the polls were wrong...

    Rinse and repeat
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,725
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
    If you call a state 95% and then win the state by one vote,  you were right. 
    Their job was to characterize the election. Their job was to distinguish for us the good polls vs the bad ones. They were wrong. Again. On a catastrophic level. They could have kept a few thousand voters home in key states.

    Let’s just be civil and agree to disagree. I’ll be careful to refrain from replying to your supportive 538 comments, if any.
    I don't think I'm being uncivil.  Also I'm neither supportive or critical of him.  He's a modeler.  I started my career modeling credit risk.  The shit is hard and can send you in a million different directions.  Sometimes you feel like you're wrong as often as you are right, but what you're trying to do is mitigate the margins of your errors.  I think Nate's job is even harder than normal modeling because he's using source data that may be corrupted before he even touches it, which is what he's trying to adjust.  It's just an interesting website to me, not an actual crystal ball.
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,344
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
    If you call a state 95% and then win the state by one vote,  you were right. 
    Their job was to characterize the election. Their job was to distinguish for us the good polls vs the bad ones. They were wrong. Again. On a catastrophic level. They could have kept a few thousand voters home in key states.

    Let’s just be civil and agree to disagree. I’ll be careful to refrain from replying to your supportive 538 comments, if any.
    I don't think I'm being uncivil.  Also I'm neither supportive or critical of him.  He's a modeler.  I started my career modeling credit risk.  The shit is hard and can send you in a million different directions.  Sometimes you feel like you're wrong as often as you are right, but what you're trying to do is mitigate the margins of your errors.  I think Nate's job is even harder than normal modeling because he's using source data that may be corrupted before he even touches it, which is what he's trying to adjust.  It's just an interesting website to me, not an actual crystal ball.
    I think this was the biggest problem.  I also think Trump supporters lied to pollsters  to “own the libs”.
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 12,158
    JimmyV said:
    So the polls were wrong but what can the exit polls tell us about why the polls were wrong...

    Rinse and repeat
    Ha!
    Yes let's take polls on what is wrong with polls.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,539
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
    If you call a state 95% and then win the state by one vote,  you were right. 
    Their job was to characterize the election. Their job was to distinguish for us the good polls vs the bad ones. They were wrong. Again. On a catastrophic level. They could have kept a few thousand voters home in key states.

    Let’s just be civil and agree to disagree. I’ll be careful to refrain from replying to your supportive 538 comments, if any.
    Your beef seems to be with the pollsters rather than 538...they just report the polls
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,539
    EDIT: Original post was unrelated and in wrong thread. I will repost that in the proper one.  

    I will just say - Nate Silver and 538 is dead.  Picking the winner when you're a statistical modeler but being off by 15% is not a win. I mean without doing research, the most likely outcome of this election was Biden winning.  An infant could have done that.
    I think most of us know that it is just information.  You act like he has some obligation to be exactly right.  

    538 will still exist and you will still be a squeaky voice on a message board for many years to come.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 3,982
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
    If you call a state 95% and then win the state by one vote,  you were right. 
    Their job was to characterize the election. Their job was to distinguish for us the good polls vs the bad ones. They were wrong. Again. On a catastrophic level. They could have kept a few thousand voters home in key states.

    Let’s just be civil and agree to disagree. I’ll be careful to refrain from replying to your supportive 538 comments, if any.
    I don't think I'm being uncivil.  Also I'm neither supportive or critical of him.  He's a modeler.  I started my career modeling credit risk.  The shit is hard and can send you in a million different directions.  Sometimes you feel like you're wrong as often as you are right, but what you're trying to do is mitigate the margins of your errors.  I think Nate's job is even harder than normal modeling because he's using source data that may be corrupted before he even touches it, which is what he's trying to adjust.  It's just an interesting website to me, not an actual crystal ball.


    I did not intend to imply you were being uncivil, sorry about that. I think pollsters and modelers need to look at results on a county by county level. Stop with the hundreds of polls each week and look how people vote based on mileage from urban centers and how the historic lean of the state is. Make each poll organic. Put more hard work into it.

     This election was extremely similar to 2016 which made sense since Labor Day as trump was winning his covid is BS argument, which told us all we needed to know about insane rural and exurban voters. The economy is the most important issue. That is beyond nuts but that’s what the polls kept saying, neck and neck w covid.

    This election was not that difficult. I could not even budge the discussion here (this is no way on you) that it was more of a 60/40 at best and not 86 to 90 for Biden 

    And thats not mentioning how 538 completely missed on the senate and overestimated the dem control In the house by predicting the Dems would get 21 seats over the majority and will likely end up with only 11. Massive misses everywhere.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,725
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:

    What a joke. The four bumps to the right are MUCH larger and 538 predicted 338 electoral votes for Biden with an 89% chance of winning.

    RCP and trafalgar did a better job than 538.
    What's wit your blood vendetta against 538? First,  Trafalgar predicted a Trump win.  You're arguing the spread is more important than the super bowl win.  Second,  RCP does zero analysis.  They are just aggregating and averaging. 

    You see the bump in that picture on the right? You saw the prediction of 338 EVs? You saw numerous states listed as Biden 95% which were nail biters this election and last? 538 had zero clue what was going to happen this election.  Wittes is a joke for sending that tweet.

    538 is an interesting outfit that does publish good articles, but their ability to understand the American electorate since trump took the escalator ride from hell is garbage and feeds into trumps fake news narrative.
    If you call a state 95% and then win the state by one vote,  you were right. 
    Their job was to characterize the election. Their job was to distinguish for us the good polls vs the bad ones. They were wrong. Again. On a catastrophic level. They could have kept a few thousand voters home in key states.

    Let’s just be civil and agree to disagree. I’ll be careful to refrain from replying to your supportive 538 comments, if any.
    I don't think I'm being uncivil.  Also I'm neither supportive or critical of him.  He's a modeler.  I started my career modeling credit risk.  The shit is hard and can send you in a million different directions.  Sometimes you feel like you're wrong as often as you are right, but what you're trying to do is mitigate the margins of your errors.  I think Nate's job is even harder than normal modeling because he's using source data that may be corrupted before he even touches it, which is what he's trying to adjust.  It's just an interesting website to me, not an actual crystal ball.


    I did not intend to imply you were being uncivil, sorry about that. I think pollsters and modelers need to look at results on a county by county level. Stop with the hundreds of polls each week and look how people vote based on mileage from urban centers and how the historic lean of the state is. Make each poll organic. Put more hard work into it.

     This election was extremely similar to 2016 which made sense since Labor Day as trump was winning his covid is BS argument, which told us all we needed to know about insane rural and exurban voters. The economy is the most important issue. That is beyond nuts but that’s what the polls kept saying, neck and neck w covid.

    This election was not that difficult. I could not even budge the discussion here (this is no way on you) that it was more of a 60/40 at best and not 86 to 90 for Biden 

    And thats not mentioning how 538 completely missed on the senate and overestimated the dem control In the house by predicting the Dems would get 21 seats over the majority and will likely end up with only 11. Massive misses everywhere.
    The polling you're talking about would be massively expensive.  And if you think about it, a campaign isn't going to pay for that.  They use polls to determine where to invest their resources, not to predict if they will win and by how much..necessarily.  If it's close, within the MOE, that's where they invest.  
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,539
    edited November 2020


    LOL

    “If they’re coming after FiveThirtyEight, then the answer is fuck you, we did a good job!” Silver replied, explaining that the only reason former Vice President Joe Biden was considered such a heavy favorite in the site’s closely watched model was because “he could withstand a 2016-style polling error or a bit larger” and still win the election. On the eve of that election, FiveThirtyEight gave Donald Trump a 28.6 percent chance of winning, much higher than other polling aggregators.
    Post edited by Gern Blansten on
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,265
    Still a lot of value on Al Gross in AK if you're looking for an underdog.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 14,941
    I'll feel a lot better about this if/when Joe Biden actually does win the election.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,265
    Perdue is below 50% for Senate so that race will head to a runoff in January. If you know anyone in GA that needs to register to vote they can do so until December 9th I believe.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,725
    I predicted 10mm vote win for Biden.  I think that might be a stretch because I was thinking 160 mm voters.  Looks like that's a little high. 
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 12,158
    Silver is taking a victory lap while Biden is up just under 2.5 points nationally and his model predicted 8.4 in his final post.
    Its not getting to 5 or 6 like he says, not enough votes left to make that happen.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 14,941
    Biden has a 4 million vote lead in California with only 66% of the count in, so his popular vote lead is likely to increase. However, that number will tell us as little about the nation as a whole as it did in 2016. 
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,538
    so if biden wins even 3 out of the 5 remaining states once everything is counted, is nate still garbage?
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


Sign In or Register to comment.