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.
Think probabilistically. Our probabilities are based on the historical accuracy of election polls since 1972.
That is why he was so dismissive of Trump last year. You can not do that this election. Under none of those scenario's does Trump win the nomination.
He was dismissive because 1.) Early leaders very rarely end up winning the nomination. 2.) He had no idea that contrary to normalcy so many people would hang on in the GOP primaries. His model factors in house effect for pollsters, trend lines, economic data, quality of pollsters, among other things. It's more complicated than your assumption that it's just "An averaging of polls." He's even pointed out that 65 percent means very little. As people with a 35 percent chance win all the time. He has even said several times that Trump still has a solid chance at winning. Trump led in almost every poll from the beginning until the end. So far he has led in only 5 different polls against Clinton. So yes it's possible he might defy the data and do the impossible but it's not as likely if things keep up this way. It it's very very close/tied/or Trump leads by the end of the month he will likely win. If Clinton is leading by a decent margin at the end of the month then she will likely win. There aren't that many votes left to chase 60 days out, simply put it.
He was dismissive because 1.) Early leaders very rarely end up winning the nomination. 2.) He had no idea that contrary to normalcy so many people would hang on in the GOP primaries. His model factors in house effect for pollsters, trend lines, economic data, quality of pollsters, among other things. It's more complicated than your assumption that it's just "An averaging of polls." He's even pointed out that 65 percent means very little. As people with a 35 percent chance win all the time. He has even said several times that Trump still has a solid chance at winning. Trump led in almost every poll from the beginning until the end. So far he has led in only 5 different polls against Clinton. So yes it's possible he might defy the data and do the impossible but it's not as likely if things keep up this way. It it's very very close/tied/or Trump leads by the end of the month he will likely win. If Clinton is leading by a decent margin at the end of the month then she will likely win. There aren't that many votes left to chase 60 days out, simply put it.
Yes it is more complicated than that but then you go on to make my argument for me. Historical trends did not hold.
I'm frankly surprised he's giving ohio & pennsylvania to hillary. Florida, yes, but the rust belt is going to be a heavy lift. 82% chance that hillary will take pennsylvania? That's a little much.
Everyone knows by now that nafta sucked... but not everyone knows that the major push for nafta was republican... they just know bill clinton signed it.
drumpf is pounding away at that fact, and the low-information rust belt crowd is eating it up...
That's an 82% chance for her to win PA if the election were held today. The Polls-plus forecast has her at 66.8% to win PA on Election Day.
Yes they could. They are nothing more than models. Just like someone devised Wins above average and any decent elementary math student can decipher them.
Yet somehow no other analyst predicted with Nate Silver's precision. Give credit where credit's due, even if his news aren't to your liking.
Actually, Silver's model showed a very good chance for Trump. It was Silver himself who decided that it was a problem with the model, because he didn't think the idea had merit. In other words, he went from analyst to commentator, much to his loss.
Actually, Silver's model showed a very good chance for Trump. It was Silver himself who decided that it was a problem with the model, because he didn't think the idea had merit. In other words, he went from analyst to commentator, much to his loss.
Hopefully he's learned his lesson. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
since the lies abound from the Hildabeast controlled media - might as well throw in the illegal votes and rigged machines...
Yep, Spot on!
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.
New N. Silver Poll - Hillary at 127%, Trump - 14
