Nate Silver- only 10% chance Trump wins

[Claudette]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

Poor Toro, he is using faulty math to prove that I don't understand math.



It is what it is Toro, Silver gives Trump a 1-10 chance. No additional math or rationalization is required.

Yes. 1-10 is pretty easy to decipher. Of course they predicted the same or less in 2016.

Surprise. The left got schloonged

Anyone who takes polls seriously is dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[j-mac]

Nate Silver, boy genius and favorite poll forecaster of the unhinged left, gives Trump only a 1 in 10 chance of winning. I guess he didn't learn a thing from his blown forecast in 2016......Maybe he uses the same model that Fauci used to forecast the Wu-Flu deaths?

I wonder if he’ll give up on politics after this and go back to being wrong in the sports world?

 

[AntonToo]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

Poor Toro, he is using faulty math to prove that I don't understand math.



It is what it is Toro, Silver gives Trump a 1-10 chance. No additional math or rationalization is required.

Yes. 1-10 is pretty easy to decipher. Of course they predicted the same or less in 2016.

Surprise. The left got schloonged

Anyone who takes polls seriously is dumber than a box of rocks.

Except they didn't and you are dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[Claudette]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

Poor Toro, he is using faulty math to prove that I don't understand math.



It is what it is Toro, Silver gives Trump a 1-10 chance. No additional math or rationalization is required.

Yes. 1-10 is pretty easy to decipher. Of course they predicted the same or less in 2016.

Surprise. The left got schloonged

Anyone who takes polls seriously is dumber than a box of rocks.

Except they didn't and you are dumber than a box of rocks.

They sure did. In 2016 every poll, pundit and talking head told us all that Hitlery would be our next POTUS.

Surprise.

Seems you are the one dumber than a box of rocks and that's an insult to rocks. Dumbass.

 

[Street Juice]

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

That's not how point spreads work.

 

[Missourian]

Nate is already hedging...

Nate Silver: "Without Pennsylvania, Biden becomes an underdog"

FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver: "Without Pennsylvania, Biden becomes an underdog"

Trump won the battleground state by less than a point in 2016.

www.axios.com

 

[Natural Citizen]

 

[Natural Citizen]

I know for a fact that Trump will receive a lot of small L libertarian votes. Meaning those who historically reject the Libertarian Party and the duopoly specifically.

Not because they approve of him, but because they know that Biden's group will go after everything they have.

For the record, those '08 and '12 crowds blew Trump's '16 and '20 crowds out of the water.

They've been trolling the pollsters pretty hard, too. It's a huge demographic. In fact, they're historically the kings and queens of purposefully screwing up pollsters, just for fun. lol. Most of em didn't even vote last time.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm sorry. I forgot. I'm a "normie."

I do this with billions of dollars, and have done it successfully for decades.

And the difference of 6% with an error factor doesn't mean much.

This ain't the CPI, bro. lolol.

They can't manipulate these numbers around the way they do with the CPI by substituting with Chained CPI in order to purposely deceive and the electorate understate the effect of inflation on the American standard of living.

I mean, you can post some bullshit chart. But it won't work the way it does with screwing around with the CPI.

 

[Faun]

Nate is already hedging...

Nate Silver: "Without Pennsylvania, Biden becomes an underdog"

FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver: "Without Pennsylvania, Biden becomes an underdog"

Trump won the battleground state by less than a point in 2016.

www.axios.com

I don't see Biden winning Pennsylvania.

 

[AntonToo]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

Poor Toro, he is using faulty math to prove that I don't understand math.



It is what it is Toro, Silver gives Trump a 1-10 chance. No additional math or rationalization is required.

Yes. 1-10 is pretty easy to decipher. Of course they predicted the same or less in 2016.

Surprise. The left got schloonged

Anyone who takes polls seriously is dumber than a box of rocks.

Except they didn't and you are dumber than a box of rocks.

They sure did. In 2016 every poll, pundit and talking head told us all that Hitlery would be our next POTUS.

Surprise.

Seems you are the one dumber than a box of rocks and that's an insult to rocks. Dumbass.

No they didn't you are just making up bullshit.

Nate Silver estimated Trump having about 30% chance to win in 2016.

 

[bripat9643]

Nate Silver, boy genius and favorite poll forecaster of the unhinged left, gives Trump only a 1 in 10 chance of winning. I guess he didn't learn a thing from his blown forecast in 2016......Maybe he uses the same model that Fauci used to forecast the Wu-Flu deaths?

How close was he in 2016?

You know what they say: Garbage in. Garbage out.

 

[Claudette]

Here's how retarded the Trump cultists are, especially at math.

Trump has a 10% chance of winning. That's the equivalent of a 10-point underdog winning in the NFL.

Do 10-point dogs win in the NFL? Yes. About 1 in every 10 games.

So believing that polls (or poll aggregators, such as 538) are "all wrong" or "always wrong" is about as retarded as believing Vegas is "all wrong" or "always wrong" on sports betting when picking winners based on the spread.

It's like the Trump cultists betting that the 10-point dog will always win.

Poor Toro, he is using faulty math to prove that I don't understand math.



It is what it is Toro, Silver gives Trump a 1-10 chance. No additional math or rationalization is required.

Yes. 1-10 is pretty easy to decipher. Of course they predicted the same or less in 2016.

Surprise. The left got schloonged

Anyone who takes polls seriously is dumber than a box of rocks.

Except they didn't and you are dumber than a box of rocks.

They sure did. In 2016 every poll, pundit and talking head told us all that Hitlery would be our next POTUS.

Surprise.

Seems you are the one dumber than a box of rocks and that's an insult to rocks. Dumbass.

No they didn't you are just making up bullshit.

Nate Silver estimated Trump having about 30% chance to win in 2016.

They most certainly did predict a Hitlery win. The next day after Trump won they all looked like they were sucking on lemons.

Every one of them thought Hitlery had it in the bag and that's why she ran the campaign she did. She completely skipped the rust belt cause she was sure she had the election in the bag.

So much for poll, pundits and talking heads.

 

[Faun]

Nate Silver, boy genius and favorite poll forecaster of the unhinged left, gives Trump only a 1 in 10 chance of winning. I guess he didn't learn a thing from his blown forecast in 2016......Maybe he uses the same model that Fauci used to forecast the Wu-Flu deaths?

Oh look, yet another rightard who fled the forum after Trump lost the election.