Nate Silver Say... Everything Nate Silver goes here

[Leweman]

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right? Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.

Do prove it

I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times. I'll even provide a righty news source for you.

Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com

I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: "Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections."

Doesn't that just hurt your argument more? It's right using the data all the way back. Why would it be wrong this time?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times – Telegraph Blogs

well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.

That blog backs up Nates failings with facts....

(Nate is a blog, BTW... )

I understand why the libs like nate... He's feeding you what you want to hear...

His models are off, his weighting is off, and he's selective on the polls he "accepts"...

Sorry, Nate is a hack...

Nate is not a seer, but he is a statistician. And a damn good one. Dante uses NAte's Blog along with

you people are so stuck-on-stupid you think everything is a rigid talking point., You don't listen. You build up straw men with every post. No matter how many times people post other sources to go with Nate's, not validating every point, but backing up the general analysis, people like you go 'na, na, na, na, na, na...

 

[Liability]

New Projection of Election Results: Romney 52, Obama 47 | The Weekly Standard

PROJECTION of 52% for Romney and (I keed you not) 47% for The ONE.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

^Dainty cannot dispute the analysis of Nate's failings, so he ignores it and pretends that it is the conservaives who ignore reality.



Dainty is such a transparent little fraud.

Like Doktor Louse...
you too are so stuck-on-stupid you think everything is a rigid talking point., You don't listen. You build up straw men with every post. No matter how many times people post other sources to go with Nate's, not validating every point, but backing up the general analysis, people like you go 'na, na, na, na, na, na...'

It is obvious to any sane rational person that Nate and every other statistician has failings. What is hilarious is that you always posit these idiocies and think it makes you some kind of debater. It makes you look like the hack you are.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/

 

[Dr.House]

well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.

That blog backs up Nates failings with facts....

(Nate is a blog, BTW... )

I understand why the libs like nate... He's feeding you what you want to hear...

His models are off, his weighting is off, and he's selective on the polls he "accepts"...

Sorry, Nate is a hack...

Nate is not a seer, but he is a statistician. And a damn good one. Dante uses NAte's Blog along with

you people are so stuck-on-stupid you think everything is a rigid talking point., You don't listen. You build up straw men with every post. No matter how many times people post other sources to go with Nate's, not validating every point, but backing up the general analysis, people like you go 'na, na, na, na, na, na...

Just because you're fucking stupid doesn't mean the rest of us have to join you.... When you selectively choose your "analysis" you can make anything smell like roses... When you use ridiculous oversampled polls, you can get awesome results to support your preconceived notions...

The evidence of how off nate is is plain as day... Choosing to ignore facts counter to your beliefs is, well, Dante Gay...

Now fuck off...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*

Yes he did a great job calling sports events.
An election is not a sports event. He has his head up his ass and will receive the Election Chief Dim Bulb award on Nov 7.

Watch Nate magically change his model in the final few days before the election...

translation from wingnutty to English:

Watch when Nate's changes his predictions based on new data (it's what people do with statistical models) Wingnut World will jump up and down screaming "Look he's changing things!"

 

[Liability]

* * * *

^Dainty cannot dispute the analysis of Nate's failings, so he ignores it and pretends that it is the conservaives who ignore reality.



Dainty is such a transparent little fraud.

Like Doktor Louse...
you too are so stuck-on-stupid you think everything is a rigid talking point., You don't listen. You build up straw men with every post. No matter how many times people post other sources to go with Nate's, not validating every point, but backing up the general analysis, people like you go 'na, na, na, na, na, na...'

It is obvious to any sane rational person that Nate and every other statistician has failings. What is hilarious is that you always posit these idiocies and think it makes you some kind of debater. It makes you look like the hack you are.

^

CERTIFIED DANTE GAY!

Dainty cannot even acknowledge the documented and obvious failings of "Nate."

Dainty is gayer than Liberace and less persuasive than TderpM.

 

[Dr.House]

 

[Dr.House]

 

[AceRothstein]

Do prove it

I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times. I'll even provide a righty news source for you.

Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com

I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: "Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections."

Doesn't that just hurt your argument more? It's right using the data all the way back. Why would it be wrong this time?

Because nobody knows which data they are using. I can probably put something together right now that has predicted every election back to 1860.

If you already know the outcome, it is easy to manipulate the data to show what you are looking for. How do we not know that their data actually predicted only 4 of 9 elections the first time they put it together? It could have and they could have tweaked it until it showed them predicting every election for the last 32 years.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[Dr.House]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100186850/romney-obama-nate-silver-new-york-times/

Nate isn’t very good at calling close elections. In 2010, he correctly predicted the outcome of the senate elections with the greatest leads. But in the 5 genuinely close races, he got it wrong in 3. For the House elections, Nate ran this extraordinary headline: “House Forecast: G.O.P. Plus 54-55 Seats; Significantly Larger or Smaller Gains Possible.” So, this oracle predicted that the results could have been “larger” or “smaller” – how prescient. In fact, they were much larger. The Republicans took 63 seats.

Significantly Larger or Smaller....

Way to be precise, Nate...

 

[Leweman]

I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times. I'll even provide a righty news source for you.

Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com

Doesn't that just hurt your argument more? It's right using the data all the way back. Why would it be wrong this time?

Because nobody knows which data they are using. I can probably put something together right now that has predicted every election back to 1860.

If you already know the outcome, it is easy to manipulate the data to show what you are looking for. How do we not know that their data actually predicted only 4 of 9 elections the first time they put it together? It could have and they could have tweaked it until it showed them predicting every election for the last 32 years.

this is their journal article

http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...84a.pdf&code=7872cfbedf0b87f100828a47df480146

 

[Dr.House]

Nate Silver's latest prediction on the election:

"Obama will win, unless he doesn't." - Nate Silver

 

[mamooth]

SurveyUSA shows tie in Florida. Zogby shows Romney +1. Yeah, that PPP is so biased. Florida is a dead heat, and turnout will be everything.

The poll aggregators. Read 'em and weep, righties.

RCP O290-R248
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...mlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/pollster

Pollster.com O277-R206
Pollster: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

Five-thirty-eight.com (Nate Silver) O294.6-R243.4
Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Princeton Election consortium O303-R235
Princeton Election Consortium — A first draft of electoral history

AP O271-R206
AP Analysis: Advantage Obama in race for electoral votes

InTrade O281-R257
2012 Electoral Map - The Intrade Forecast 10/30/2012

There are some more, but they all say the same thing. One wonders how the evil Nate Silver managed to mind-control all of them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times – Telegraph Blogs

Nate isn’t very good at calling close elections. In 2010, he correctly predicted the outcome of the senate elections with the greatest leads. But in the 5 genuinely close races, he got it wrong in 3. For the House elections, Nate ran this extraordinary headline: “House Forecast: G.O.P. Plus 54-55 Seats; Significantly Larger or Smaller Gains Possible.” So, this oracle predicted that the results could have been “larger” or “smaller” – how prescient. In fact, they were much larger. The Republicans took 63 seats.

Significantly Larger or Smaller....

Way to be precise, Nate...

question is: who correctly called the races in question?

 

[deaddogseye]

What are the loons of the far right radical fringe, aka today's average Republican, going to do when Obama wins?

lol.

What. are. they. going. to. do?

i think what republicans will do depends on how obama wins - assuming he wins (which at the moment i still think he will)

Suppose he wins an electoral victory but loses the political war? By that i mean he gets 270 (270-290 is best case) but Romney gets a majority of the popular vote and maybe wins the popular vote by a fullpercent or even alittle more.

What does obama do then? Yes he has won the presdency but he has no ability even in the worlld of political BS to claim any type of vote in favor of his policies. To the contrary. The republicans will be able to claim very credibly that a few people in ohio and wisconsin may be able to decide who is the president but they dont speak for the electorate as to how they want the counrty governed. if anything such a mixed result will enable Republicans to say the vote was in support of their policies -- against taxes, obamacare etc.

As i said Obama will be president but there will be nothing in that kind of result that should tell Rebublicans they need to compromise with him. If anything such results would support the opposite conclusion

 

[Liability]

Nate Silver's latest prediction on the election:

"Obama will win, unless he doesn't." - Nate Silver

Later qualified with a firm "maybe."

 

[Dick Tuck]

Nate Silver might just win this year's award for Chief Dim Bulb.

Of the three major poll analysts, Nate Silver was the most accurate in 2008, coming in ahead of Real Clear and Pollster. Unlike you, he has a track record. You just have a big mouth.

 

[Zander]

Here is one thing we can all agree upon; "Nate Silver" will either become a legend (at least for a few years) for correctly predicting his 2nd POTUS election (yeah, he's only done this one other time) , or he'll be remembered as the hapless dupe that was roped into carrying Obama's poll water.....my money is on the latter.