Nate Silver Say... Everything Nate Silver goes here

Nate made a good bet....

No, Nate conducted solid analysis based on data.
Yes, as did the Obama campaign. Romney's campaign should have done that too, and Willard wouldn't have been shell-shocked.

I think the problem there is one of a culture problem...

Romney is a product of the Corporate World. And the thing in the Corporate World is that the Boss is Always Right.

So the campaign made one mistake after another, and frankly, no one around Romney objected. Especially not the Mormon Cultists in his inner circle.

Everyone noticed how fast the Republicans threw Romney under the bus yesterday when his "gifts" comments came out?
 
I wonder, will conservatives mock Nate Silver next election? Or will they actually trust his data?

I'm betting that next time, liberals will deify Silver, and proclaim that because he was right this time, he will certainly be right next time.

Unless he shows the Republican leading... then they'll turn on him.
 
I think people - liberals and conservatives alike - misunderstand what Silver does. I was searching for his analysis on the 2010 election and came upon this.

Nate's real strength isn't his forecasting system as much as it's his gift for explaining what the data is, and isn't, telling us. All his analysis derives from publicly available data.

Daily Kos: LOL ... now they're going after Nate Silver

Silver does a statistical analysis of the polls and assigns probabilities to outcomes.
 
And on the 2010 election, I found this

Silver was 92% correct on Senate races (missed AK, NV, & CO) and 95% on Governor races (missed IL & FL). But his record is even more impressive than this…

In 56 of 73 races for Senate/Governor, Silver assigned a 90% probability or higher that he was correct. He got all of them right. This included some tricky races including the Feingold upset, the crowded Senate race in Florida, and the close race in PA.

But even on the races that he had less confidence in, Silver delivered. He was 71% in races he assigned an 80% probability to, and 70% in toss ups (50-80%).

Pacific Northwest-Coast Bias » Blog Archive » Grading Nate Silver’s Election Predictions
 
And on the 2010 election, I found this

Silver was 92% correct on Senate races (missed AK, NV, & CO) and 95% on Governor races (missed IL & FL). But his record is even more impressive than this…

In 56 of 73 races for Senate/Governor, Silver assigned a 90% probability or higher that he was correct. He got all of them right. This included some tricky races including the Feingold upset, the crowded Senate race in Florida, and the close race in PA.

But even on the races that he had less confidence in, Silver delivered. He was 71% in races he assigned an 80% probability to, and 70% in toss ups (50-80%).

Pacific Northwest-Coast Bias » Blog Archive » Grading Nate Silver’s Election Predictions

To be fair, IL was a big shock. Everyone thought Quinn was going down. Unfortunately, he didn't, and we got socked with a 66% tax increase.
 
It's hilarious that you actually believe that.

Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.

You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.

You're effed now.

Yep. Gimpy made the mistake of thinking the first debate was a bellwether :razz: :clap2: :eusa_boohoo:
 
Clearly, Silver is doing something right. I don't know how you can argue against that

Silver just analyzes data. Basically, he said that if the state polls were wrong, then he was wrong. And if the state polls were right, he was right.

It isn't rocket science. Though he's very good at what he does.

What I can't understand is the desperate need of some to denigrate him, call him "boi" in the most derisive fashion, as if acknowledging the guy is smart and good at what he does is somehow a violation of some rightwingnut code.
 
Clearly, Silver is doing something right. I don't know how you can argue against that

Silver just analyzes data. Basically, he said that if the state polls were wrong, then he was wrong. And if the state polls were right, he was right.

It isn't rocket science. Though he's very good at what he does.

What I can't understand is the desperate need of some to denigrate him, call him "boi" in the most derisive fashion, as if acknowledging the guy is smart and good at what he does is somehow a violation of some rightwingnut code.

They just hate that he was right, that's all.
 
If Republicans were smart....

should I stop there?

OK, I'll finish...

If Republicans were smart, they would have used Silver's predictions as a motivator to get their troops rallied.

I think FOX/Rush/Sean fucked themselves by predicting a #BishopRomney landslide. It doesn't take much to get old, fat, lazy White people to stay on the couch, what with Ol' Mitt having sewn this thing up!
 

Forum List

Back
Top