Nate Silver (10/23/2018): "GOP chances of retaining control of the House are down to 14 percent"

Nate Silver also gave Trump a 12% chance of winning on Election day 2016. Not always right (at all)

Go to this recent article by Nate and look at the chart called:

How the House has swung historically : 2018 House Forecast

Nate Silver is making the argument that democrats have historically won more midterms than republicans going back to 1926.

IN THE LAST 24 YEARS - the Republicans have WON the MIDTERMS TEN OUT OF TWELVE TIMES. - Six in a row and then four in a row.

Nate does he not see "trends" at all in his polling and that is his fatal flaw. If this chart was for a stock or horse race, I would definitely be betting on RED.
 
Last edited:
Fortunately for Republicans they don't believe in polls.


Can you say President Donald J. Trump?

I knew you could...………

The only poll that counts is on election day...

You libtards are going to get your asses kicked.
 
Wow. The Republicans' chances to retain the House majority continue to sink.
You guys are in an extremely ugly position.

I am a person who has a lot of empathy, Therefore I feel bad for you.

Silver explains that Trump's marginally improved approval ratings are very inconsequential.
Trump’s Approval Rating Is Up. Republican House Chances Are Down. Does That Make Any Sense?



The infallible Nate Silver is the same guy who said Trump had only a 28% chance of winning the Presidency the day before the 2016 election.


File under fake news. :D
 
Last edited:
Wow. The Republicans' chances to retain the House majority continue to sink.
You guys are in an extremely ugly position.

I am a person who has a lot of empathy, Therefore I feel bad for you.

Silver explains that Trump's marginally improved approval ratings are very inconsequential.
Trump’s Approval Rating Is Up. Republican House Chances Are Down. Does That Make Any Sense?

Oh, teh horror! As the Democrats show their ass every day. Today included.

I just learned of the ass-showing as I had to work and deal with my family today.

Fucking pathetic. Everyone will see through the bullshit.

I say good on them to lose, because they assume everyone is stupid, when in reality, most Americans are pretty smart.

I've met some amazing people over the years.

None of them would support being Anti-American.

Fun fact: Free Food was not a thing in America until LBJ. That means the majority of people descended from people that made it without free food.

I just heard my aunt talking about it this afternoon, and I know the same damn thing all too well. I'm talking about the eating within your means thing. Apparently, she didn't get it as bad as I did from her mother. That's Okay, I know how to cook things. They don't have to come from the house, dammit! I can eat Reds if I wanna. :auiqs.jpg: Rattlesnake, too.

The LBJ thing I heard from my cousin last Christmas.

Free food my ass, work or starve. that's why Americans are resilient.
 
Last edited:
The main reason some of the 2016 prediction models failed so badly (the ones that gave Clinton a 95+% chance of winning; the 538 model gave her ~70% IIRC) is that they failed to account for the fact that polling errors tend to be correlated. That is, they had terms to account for polling error, but they assumed that the errors in various states would be random, so that if the overall polling average in (for example) Pennsylvania was 2% too favorable for Clinton, that implied nothing about the accuracy of polls in Wisconsin. In reality, polling errors across states are likely to be correlated, which is what we saw in the rust belt. Failing to account for that made them overestimate her chances of success. Note that this isn't a problem with individual polls, or even with aggregates of polls. It was a failure of the specific prediction models. Polls themselves were about as accurate in the aggregate as they usually are, i.e. within ~2% of the national popular vote. But in a close election where the electoral college and popular vote are split a 2% error in favor of Clinton, along with the correlation in errors across states, is enough to give the impression that the entire enterprise was flawed. But mostly it's just that people are bad at interpreting statistical models, and some of the models (the 95+% Clinton victory ones) were flawed.


I just looked this up. Your facts are wrong. Hillary was supposed to win Pennsylvania by 3.7%. She actually lost the State by 1.2%. Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan were all off by over 6%. The polls were shit in 2016 and are probably worse now.
 
Are we hauling out election night prediction MSM polls?
I wanna play!

p2SXHy3.jpg

912vhhA.jpg
 
I just looked this up. Your facts are wrong. Hillary was supposed to win Pennsylvania by 3.7%. She actually lost the State by 1.2%. Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan were all off by over 6%. The polls were shit in 2016 and are probably worse now.

You'll notice that I said ~2% in the national popular vote. Not state polls. I think I also said at some point that the polling errors were largest in the particular states (PA, WI, MI) that swung the election, but if I didn't say that it's certainly true. See for example this article. On the national polling miss, see here.

"Clinton won the national popular vote by two percentage points according to certified vote tallies compiled by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. Most individual surveys found Clinton holding a small single-digit edge over Trump, averaging to a three-point margin. Looking across individual national polls, the average difference from the final Clinton-Trump vote margin is 2.2 percentage points, much smaller than the level of error apparent when they were compared to preliminary vote results (3.4 points)."​

I can see that I should have been clearer that the example I gave about correlation in polling errors across states wasn't a real number. I didn't feel like looking it up. The point I was making was about correlated errors in polling between states, rather than about the actual error in any given state.
 
Wow. The Republicans' chances to retain the House majority continue to sink.
You guys are in an extremely ugly position.

I am a person who has a lot of empathy, Therefore I feel bad for you.

Silver explains that Trump's marginally improved approval ratings are very inconsequential.
Trump’s Approval Rating Is Up. Republican House Chances Are Down. Does That Make Any Sense?



The infallible Nate Silver is the same guy who said Trump had only a 28% chance of winning the Presidency the day before the 2016 election.


File under fake news. :D

Yes. Silver is a Democratic Party shill, and has no more credibility than any other Democrat PR hack. They all make a point of lying these days; they're proud of it, actually.
 
i'll disagree with you here.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Frealspin%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F12%2Fthumbnail_Slide1-1200x674.jpg

What is the importance of this poll? Please share with us and tell us why this has any value and the one below, nothing...in your humble opinion.

Share with us all if you would please, which results are relevant. The popular vote or the Electoral College results I posted. Keep in mind, the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign forecast that Hillary would win 400 Electoral College votes. To me, that makes President Trump's victory a LANDSLIDE!

I take it that you are more than familiar with this display.

New%20York%20Times-XL.png
 
i'll disagree with you here.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Frealspin%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F12%2Fthumbnail_Slide1-1200x674.jpg

What is the importance of this poll? Please share with us and tell us why this has any value and the one below, nothing...in your humble opinion.

Share with us all if you would please, which results are relevant. The popular vote or the Electoral College results I posted. Keep in mind, the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign forecast that Hillary would win 400 Electoral College votes. To me, that makes President Trump's victory a LANDSLIDE!

I take it that you are more than familiar with this display.

New%20York%20Times-XL.png
it had to do with the thread it was in.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top