HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Nate Silver at 538 said B...

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:19 AM

 

Nate Silver at 538 said Bernie's chance of winning MI was <1%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

Discuss!

36 replies, 2790 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nate Silver at 538 said Bernie's chance of winning MI was <1% (Original post)
Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 OP
Champion Jack Mar 2016 #1
Ford_Prefect Mar 2016 #2
Cleita Mar 2016 #7
Ford_Prefect Mar 2016 #9
PonyUp Mar 2016 #24
RobertEarl Mar 2016 #3
Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #4
Cleita Mar 2016 #5
marions ghost Mar 2016 #6
earthside Mar 2016 #8
SMC22307 Mar 2016 #12
Dem2 Mar 2016 #10
cemaphonic Mar 2016 #14
DirkGently Mar 2016 #11
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #17
Dawgs Mar 2016 #21
jfern Mar 2016 #13
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #15
pa28 Mar 2016 #16
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #18
Dawgs Mar 2016 #22
Flying Squirrel Mar 2016 #19
madokie Mar 2016 #20
VulgarPoet Mar 2016 #23
Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #25
Renew Deal Mar 2016 #26
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #27
Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #28
LWolf Mar 2016 #29
ladjf Mar 2016 #31
LWolf Mar 2016 #32
ladjf Mar 2016 #30
Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #33
Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #34
LonePirate Mar 2016 #35
Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #36

Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:21 AM

1. Yeah, Nate screwed up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:22 AM

2. I think Nate is plugged into the wrong set of clues and can't see the ones that work now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ford_Prefect (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:26 AM

7. Exactly. What was true in past elections isn't the same today.

This is what happens when you don't leave the bubble to look at what has changed outside of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:27 AM

9. Imagine that......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ford_Prefect (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:31 AM

24. Nate has his Hillary blinders on.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:22 AM

3. 538 is toast

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:23 AM

4. 538 is snake oil

 

It's a total fraud. Any one of us could do what they do just by looking at the internet and making a website about our predictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:24 AM

5. I guess Nate Silver needs some polish to remove the tarnish on

his reputation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:24 AM

6. Those crazy voters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:27 AM

8. I'm sick of Nate Silver.

This little statistical prediction game is boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:30 AM

12. "MATH!" indeed.

I'll second your "sick of."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:28 AM

10. Doesn't say much about Nate

Says a lot about how terrible the majority of polling firms are in certain types of open primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:35 AM

14. Agreed

538's statistical models may well have been flawed, and I'm sure they and others will be studying this primary for some time. But ultimately, it was the polls themselves that were consistently off from the final result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:28 AM

11. Silver tweeted something about having

an "intuition" that Sanders might win. From the man who scoffs at gut feelings in the face of inexorable numeric truth.

He's fine, really. Very smart. But the aura of invincibility is gone from 538.

Their model went splat tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:50 AM

17. Silver is full of shit

In my experience, people who don't have much or any background in things like statistics, economic modeling or financial modeling tend to be way too impressed with people who grind up a bunch of numbers and spit out something that implies a level of precision that can't possibly exist. With all the unknowns and moving parts, like what percentage of which types of voters will show up, are the polls properly accounting for independents and people without land lines and so many other issues, nobody can aggregate a bunch of polls and data and say there is a 69% chance this will happen and an 82% chance that will happen.

And then he always has the out clauses when he misses by a mile, well we missed this and that surprised us, but now we'll incorporate that into our analysis and next time we'll be right!

And then next time it will be some different issues that he didn't quite account for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:23 AM

21. Been saying that for years.

 

He took the average of the state polls in 2008, took the results as his, and became famous for it. Way too many Democrats fell for it. It's quite embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:31 AM

13. I want more decimal points. Was it less than 0.1%? 0.01%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:38 AM

15. Less than 1% is NOT 0%

so give them a break

... unless they are consistently predicting Sanders will lose and being proved wrong again and again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:44 AM

16. One possible avenue of defense for Nate.

The polling data on which he based this conclusion on was mostly taken before Hillary's smear campaign against Bernie's record. Maybe a spectacular rejection of her dishonesty played a factor.

I don't think it was the only factor but I think it backfired on her badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:53 AM

18. I don't buy that

The spin yesterday and today was about Bernie's "ghetto" comment at the debate on Sunday night. The press was trying to turn that into a big thing and largely ignoring Hillary's smear on Bernie about the auto bailout. Then Bernie wins and they say wait, maybe Hillary's smear really hurt her.

If Silver is such a great analyst and the Hillary smear was a problem, why didn't he pick that up and factor it into his models?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:25 AM

22. There is no defense. His only job is to be accurate. If he fails at that it's his fault.

 

It doesn't matter what other factors exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 02:03 AM

19. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

The polls can not be relied upon to even come close anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 02:05 AM

20. Silver was once right

that is all

or right once, however you want to put it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:29 AM

23. Even people in the OTHER group are throwing him under the bus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:34 AM

25. K & R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:35 AM

26. That's better than the chance to win lotto

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:59 AM

28. Just like DU, many Hilary supporters do not accept the revolution and don't see it coming...yet.

Nate, I think, is one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:05 AM

29. Well, that's just wrong.

Polls don't lie, and neither does Nate Silver. He's the best, and he's way smarter than every voter out there, so voters are just supposed to nod their heads when he speaks and take his pontifications as gospel.

Since Nate Silver predicted a big win for Hillary, the headlines and numbers showing a Sanders win are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You'll see. Just wait.

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:50 AM

31. Those that don't "see" the Revolution have some serious political "cataracts".

They need to consult with Dr. Sanders. Political "cataracts" can be successfully treated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:50 AM

32. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:47 AM

30. To borrow a line from "The Last of the Mohicans",

"We were wrong to have held him in such esteem."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:51 AM

33. They keep polling Democratic voters.

They're missing the Indies and the Republicans and yes, we ARE winning over Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:52 AM

34. Nate's reputation is less than zero.

 

It's the math. It's the math. He keeps saying that even when he uses words to draw his conclusions 'my opinion counts as an equation, I AM the math!!!'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:03 AM

35. Lots of people seem to have no or little understanding of his modeling/predictions.

Yes, he was wrong; but given how he compiles his information, there was almost no way for him to be right. He relies on polling data which was universally wrong through no fault of Nate and his team. It's the old "garbage (data) in, garbage (data) out" effect which blew up his model last night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #35)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:01 PM

36. Exactly.

 

Models are only as accurate as the data used. When your data is faulty, conclusions are faulty. This is not your mother's/grandmother's election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread