Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
He ignored the data is why. He believed (With some reason) that the polling was not going to bear out for a Trump victory. They either he would decline in the polls or the anti Trump vote would coalesce around someone. Cute how you are pointing out things that happened a year ago as well. Like anyone can predict the election a year out.
Make your excuses, but he was wrong seven times on Trump's candidacy. Trump's success defied logic, so your traditional theories probably won't apply to Nov.'s election. Learn from Nate's failures.
Make your excuses, but he was wrong seven times on Trump's candidacy. Trump's success defied logic, so your traditional theories probably won't apply to Nov.'s election. Learn from Nate's failures.
Personal predictions are different from statistical models. His personal predictions were wrong during the Primaries. The actual statistical models by in large were correct during the Primaries.
""1. June 16, 2015: Why Donald Trump Isn't A Real Candidate." Silver's website said Trump's not a real candidate because "Trump's high name recognition combined with a staggering -32 favorability made him the least-liked presidential candidate of all time," which meant, "'Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another Home Alone movie with Macaulay Culkin -- or playing in the NBA Finals -- than winning the Republican nomination...'" Silver blew it.
"2. July 16, 2015: Two Good Reasons Not To Take The Donald Trump 'Surge' Seriously." So Trump's taking off, Nate Silver comes out with two reasons why everyone should not believe it; dead wrong again.
"3. July 20, 2015: Donald Trump Is The World's Greatest Troll Silver finally weighed in with this article, where he described Trump as a 'troll' candidate, who was thriving simply by virtue of the tremendous attention he could receive by insulting everybody," but he was not going to go anywhere. He had no chance to win the nomination.
"4. Aug. 6, 2015: Donald Trump's Six Stages of Doom." Obviously wrong. "He [Nate Silver] pegged Trump's odds of winning the nomination at 2%...
"5. Aug. 11, 2015: Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls, And Losing The Nomination. ... 'Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination,' Silver said. 'It's not even clear that he's trying to do so.'
"6. Nov. 23, 2015: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump's Polls." They don't mean anything; Trump has no chance. "
7. Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan -- Silver was quick to pounce after Trump finished second to Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucuses," saying this is as good as it gets.
He been wrong seven times predicting the fate and fortune of Donald Trump."
A key point that Trump supporters conveniently overlook, is that Nate Silver was stating his opinion on Trump's chances of winning the Republican primary. He wasn't basing it on a statistical model. His projections now, which give Trump chances ranging from 14.7% to 25.1% of reaching the required total of 270 electoral votes, are based on techniques that called 101 of 102 (states plus DC) contests, or 99% correctly over the past 2 elections.
There is also a bit of a difference between his personal opinions and his actual statistical models. The link from above is primarily based on comments Silver made about his personal predictions, not the statistical model based predictions.
Do you have any specific issues about the statistical models and methodology on the five thirty eight site??
Nate was wrong, seven times, methodology or otherwise. He's not a god as liberals make him out to be. Will it be President-elect Trump on Wednesday morning Nov. 9?
Nate was wrong, seven times, methodology or otherwise. He's not a god as liberals make him out to be. Will it be President-elect Trump on Wednesday morning Nov. 9?
Liberals haven't claimed Silver is some type of God. The claims that have been made is that his stastical models are highly accurate (not his personal predictions). You have yet to give any explanation of why you feel his statistical models are incorrect.
Nate was wrong, seven times, methodology or otherwise. He's not a god as liberals make him out to be. Will it be President-elect Trump on Wednesday morning Nov. 9?
He's already said Trump has a solid chance at winning. We don't claim he is a God. We simply don't dismiss him when the models don't go our way like GOP supporters do.
A key point that Trump supporters conveniently overlook, is that Nate Silver was stating his opinion on Trump's chances of winning the Republican primary. He wasn't basing it on a statistical model. His projections now, which give Trump chances ranging from 14.7% to 25.1% of reaching the required total of 270 electoral votes, are based on techniques that called 101 of 102 (states plus DC) contests, or 99% correctly over the past 2 elections.
Nate had his models during the run up to the primaries, and he completely misjudged Trump. If he ignored the facts then, how can he be a true analyst? Also, didn't he have Trump with a 70ish% chance of winning a couple of months ago? If so, the race seems pretty fluid and things keep changing.
Nate had his models during the run up to the primaries, and he completely misjudged Trump. If he ignored the facts then, how can he be a true analyst? Also, didn't he have Trump with a 70ish% chance of winning a couple of months ago? If so, the race seems pretty fluid and things keep changing.
Actually as was shown earlier his statistical models were actually pretty accurate during the Primaries. He made his own personal predictions outside of the stastical models and they were incorrect, but the actual stastical models were primarily correct.
I'm not asking about how you feel his personal opinion is, but is there anything with his methodology on his statistical models (which he explains in detail) you feel is inaccurate?
Nate had his models during the run up to the primaries, and he completely misjudged Trump. If he ignored the facts then, how can he be a true analyst? Also, didn't he have Trump with a 70ish% chance of winning a couple of months ago? If so, the race seems pretty fluid and things keep changing.
Basically you just don't like him and can't actually back up your facts is all you are saying. Gotcha.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
