Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Nate silver,
A man who gained his fame through truly superhuman statistical analyzes of sports events,
For some fucking reason, decided to go balls deep into politics and has been an absolute utter fucking failure ever since. 0% accuracy.
I have absolutely no interest in hearing anything this dipshit has to say about politics.
Give me a prediction on next year's March madness brackets, Nate. Stay in your fucking lane. Politics != Sports.
2008
Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, missing only the prediction for Indiana.
2010
His 2010 congressional mid-term predictions were not as accurate as those made in 2008, but were still within the reported confidence interval. Silver predicted a Republican pickup of 54 seats in the House of Representatives; the GOP won 63 seats. Of the 37 gubernatorial races, FiveThirtyEight correctly predicted the winner of 36.[71]
2012
At the conclusion of that day, when Mitt Romney had conceded to Barack Obama, Silver's model had correctly predicted the winner of every one of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.[79][80] Silver, along with at least three[81] academic-based analysts—Drew Linzer,[82] Simon Jackman,[83] and Josh Putnam[84]—who also aggregated pollsfrom multiple pollsters—thus was not only broadly correct about the election outcome, but also specifically predicted the outcomes for the nine swing states.[85]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver
I'd list others but I doubt you'd read it anyway
🙄
I think the youth call what you're doing "glizzy" or something?
Nate Silver’s Political Prediction Misses:
Nate Silver’s Sports Prediction Successes:
You wanna keep going tit for tat, homie? It won't shake out in your favor. Let's see you show me some sports failures. I'll keep showing you successes.
You keep showing me political successes. I'll keep showing you failures.
Let's see who burns out first.
Ask his wife or kids. Or just check their social media.
The dude is talented. Not in politics.
I don't think you understand statistics well enough to speak on this.
2016 Presidential Election – Predicted Clinton over Trump with 71.4%.
The above for example was showing outcomes of simulations. Many polls reported way higher outcomes for Clinton and he was one of the few models showing a trump outcome and Trump's path to victory was in the simulation results. This wasn't a fail but a success of his model
Like when you are told that in a coin flip, heads is the outcome 51% of the time and hear every coin flip will be heads
Do you mean “glazing”? Cause the homie reads as such.
I haven’t come across the term “glizzy” before so it might be new.
Weirdly antagonistic tone and not sure when Silver pissed in your Wheaties, but you obviously have a hang up about him. No desire to go tit for tat, other than to say he's been more reliably accurate over time than anyone else when it comes to politics. It's like baseball - if you lifetime hit for .300, everyone is going to know your name.
Also, the whole point of the article is that early voting patterns are not indicative of final results. That's not polling analysis or data modeling, that's just historical fact. I don't think Silver is perfect, and he's got problematic issues, but on this point he's just pointing out the thing the media ignores because it gives them headlines galore for the last two weeks before the election.
I gotta weigh in on that "weirdly antagonistic tone," too. You literally said you'd list more but you doubted that person would read it? Just antagonistic all over.
You started it!
No offense but wtf Nate? Why would you use 2016 data when early voting was massively expanded since 2020?
He literally talks about that at several points. 2020 is a horrible baseline for looking at anything analytically because it was such an outlier because of COVID. Too many other variables in 2020 for it to be applicable for anything
Not just COVID, Trump's main strategy in 2020 was to turn "taking the pandemic seriously" into a partisan issue in order to make it so early and mail voting become disproportionately blue (there was no significant correlation in the past) while poisoning the well on those ballots' legitimacy.
Yeah, but have we really returned to what 2016 was like? This is the issue with a lot of analysis like this, lots of internal bias in the underlying approach.
He could very well be right, but it's just as likely we're closer to 2020 than 2016. I know a lot of people that have gone to full mail-in-ballot (since covid) and I know others concerned the mail-is will be tampered with (given some have been set on fire). Not sure either of those things were in play back in 2016.
I think that's sort of the point - if 2016 was our last "normal" election and early voting wasn't prognosticative of election results then, there's no hope it would be anything other than more variable and chaotic now.
The point wasn't about a "return to normal" or else he would be saying it was an indicator.
You mean the guy that profits off it being a close race wants me to think it's a close race?
What an odd take, and so orthogonal to what the article was about.
I don't know what this has to do with birds.
That would be "ornithological" :)
No, that's the tooth doctor.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support