U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 10-23-2012, 07:13 AM
 
5,765 posts, read 1,559,148 times
Reputation: 2608
Default Nate Silver Exposed as Partisan Hack by Josh Jordan

Quote:
Whatever the explanation, Silver’s strong showing in the 2008 election, coupled with his consistent predictions that Obama will win in November, has given Democrats a reason for optimism. While there is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of the polls, it should be noted that Nate Silver is openly rooting for Obama, and it shows in the way he forecasts the election.
Quote:
This is the type of analysis that walks a very thin line between forecasting and cheerleading. When you weight a poll based on what you think of the pollster and the results and not based on what is actually inside the poll (party sampling, changes in favorability, job approval, etc), it can make for forecasts that mirror what you hope will happen rather than what’s most likely to happen. This is also true of Silver’s dismissal of Romney’s lead in Gallup this week. While Romney is likely not up by seven points nationally, as the poll predicted, you can’t dismiss it while at the same time giving a twelve-day-old Marist/NBC Ohio poll a higher weighting than eight newer polls when Marist has leaned Obama this entire cycle.
Link: Nate Silver

And now any objective observer understands why Nate Silver's election "analysis" is worthless. Thank you Josh Jordan for doing a comprehensive deconstruction of Nate Silver, partisan hack.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,719 posts, read 1,827,295 times
Reputation: 1361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
Link: Nate Silver

And now any objective observer understands why Nate Silver's election "analysis" is worthless. Thank you Josh Jordan for doing a comprehensive deconstruction of Nate Silver, partisan hack.
You and your Blogger are clueless. Nat is a true numbers wonk, not a pretend one like Ryan. EVERY poll Nat looks at is carefully evaluated for sampling error, biases, etc and then weighted based on those factors.

By your standard I guess we all should ignore EVERY Faux Spews says, becuz they are clearly rooting for mittens.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:13 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
7,431 posts, read 3,403,353 times
Reputation: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
You and your Blogger are clueless. Nat is a true numbers wonk, not a pretend one like Ryan. EVERY poll Nat looks at is carefully evaluated for sampling error, biases, etc and then weighted based on those factors.

By your standard I guess we all should ignore EVERY Faux Spews says, becuz they are clearly rooting for mittens.
Actually, as I have repeatedly said for years, we should ignore all polls. They are to easy to skew, intentionally or not.

The only poll that truly matters is the election itself. Others polls are just attempting to tell those that trust them to be influenced in their favor.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:21 AM
 
2,926 posts, read 899,089 times
Reputation: 973
the blogger says silver is a partisan hack because he scientifically explains why the gallup poll is pointless.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:28 AM
 
1,034 posts, read 995,564 times
Reputation: 1190
Can you really be a hack when you are right 90+% of the time?

Silver's never pretended he doesn't have personal opinions, that doesn't mean his analysis is off. When he thinks democrats are going to lose a race based on the polls he says so. The Wisconsin recall comes to mind as a recent example where he said from the start the Republican (Walker) is going to win. He's pretty much consistently said Obama is going to lose NC and Indiana and won't do as well as 2008.

Last edited by beth98; 10-23-2012 at 08:57 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:34 AM
 
13,998 posts, read 3,636,168 times
Reputation: 3563
Quote:
Whatever the explanation, Silver’s strong showing in the 2008 election, coupled with his consistent predictions that Obama will win in November, has given Democrats a reason for optimism.
Facts have a well known liberal bias.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:46 AM
 
Location: FL
7,061 posts, read 2,870,011 times
Reputation: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by beth98 View Post
Can you really be a hack when you are right 90+% of the time?

Silver's never pretended he doesn't have personal opinions, that doesn't mean his analysis is off. When he thinks democrats are going to lose a race based on the polls he says so. The Wisconsin recall comes to mind as a recent example where he said from the start the a Republican (Walker) is going to win. He's pretty much consistently said Obama is going to lose NC and Indiana and won't do as well as 2008.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:49 AM
 
10,115 posts, read 2,906,056 times
Reputation: 3388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
Actually, as I have repeatedly said for years, we should ignore all polls. They are to easy to skew, intentionally or not.

The only poll that truly matters is the election itself. Others polls are just attempting to tell those that trust them to be influenced in their favor.
That's why you should look at the averages of multiple polls vs. just the numbers from the outlying polls. The averages are usually pretty accurate.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:11 AM
 
5,765 posts, read 1,559,148 times
Reputation: 2608
Jordan pretty much dismantles Silver's methodology in this article. I don't blame Obama's supporters for refusing to address that. They can't.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 10:17 AM
 
12,439 posts, read 5,147,373 times
Reputation: 3101
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
You and your Blogger are clueless. Nat is a true numbers wonk, not a pretend one like Ryan. EVERY poll Nat looks at is carefully evaluated for sampling error, biases, etc and then weighted based on those factors.

By your standard I guess we all should ignore EVERY Faux Spews says, becuz they are clearly rooting for mittens.

You should avoid Fox because they outright lie. Silver has been shown to be accurate irrespective of his political leanings. He has accurately predicted Republican Senators to have won.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top