Warren Gunnels (Policy Director for Bernie Sanders) just went on a Twitter-rant against Nate Silver

[Playinghardball]

Nate Silver failed to predict 15 out of the 19 contests that Bernie Sanders won. Don’t listen to the establishment.

Nate Silver gave Hillary Clinton a greater than 99% chance of winning the Michigan primary. Bernie Sanders won.

Nate Silver gave Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning Indiana. Bernie Sanders won Indiana.

Nate Silver gave Hillary Clinton a 51% chance of winning Oklahoma. Bernie Sanders won Oklahoma overwhelmingly.

Nate Silver had no predictions for WA, KS, UT, AK, CO, MN, ME, NE, HI, ID, WY, or Democrats Overseas. Bernie Sanders won them all

Hey Nate Silver where's your predictions for WV, OR, KY, MT, NM, ND, SD, etc.? I'm feeling the bern in those states.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4i0x0m/warren_gunnels_policy_director_for_bernie_sanders/

[floriduck]

1. Ouch! Poor Nate.

[msongs]

2. behind by 3 million votes and +/- 300 delegates somebody is feeling berned nt

[TimPlo]

5. Nate Silver is not running for office as far as I know?

So what does Hillarys votes/Delegate count have anything to do with Nate Silver being wrong? This is just a really stupid off topic post.

[bettyellen]

9. because Silver is being attacked by a SBS employee.... because they are losing.

[TimPlo]

10. Again what does her votes have to do with Nate Silver?

Are you implying that he works for her campaign?

[bettyellen]

11. Hillary winning those votes is pissing off this guy to the extent that he is attacking Silver...

[bettyellen]

3. Are they blaming Silvers for the dearth of polling in WV, OR, KY, MT, NM, ND, SD, etc?

Do they actually understand he needs polls to aggregate them? And that the majority of pollsters made the same mistakes he did? I bet they know all of that, but are pushing this BS anyway.

[Loudestlib]

4. This guy got it right.

Disclaimer I don't know anything else about him.

http://www.cafe.com/americas-huge-winner-carl-diggler-now-years-election-forecasting-king/

[hellofromreddit]

6. That was a fun read.

Yeah, Nate Silver (all of 538 politics, actually) has pretty much blown his reputation during this primary. Barely better than a coin flip.

[corbettkroehler]

7. Don't Get Banned

Post these facts in the HRC group and you may be banned.

Facts don't lie or sit will with unquestioning sycophants!

[Peace Patriot]

8. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I was hoping somebody was tracking this!

I had noticed that Nate Silver had been way, way off a couple of times, but I didn't realize how overwhelmingly wrong he's been. I did notice that Clintonbots kept posting these 90%-99% chances favoring Clinton but no one seemed to be questioning the absurd numbers, certainly not the Clintonbots themselves. (Hey, if they can call Sanders supporters "pimps," I get to call them Clintonbots, cuz that's how they seem to me, like robots--pro-Clinton like she is a race horse, but never giving any reasons why anybody should help her win the race.)

Anyway, so much for Nate Silver. This is ridiculous. He is completely unreliable. And I don't know what we can when the next Clintonbot sneaks yet another Nate Silver absurdity out under the label "Hillary Forum" so nobody can question it. But maybe we can put up a sister post that has these stats in it.

Bookmarking for that purpose.

Also, I have a question: Does anybody know if there is a connection between the Clinton campaign and Nate Silver? WHY does he keep posting these ridiculous and wrong predictions in her favor? Does he not care about his reputation? Or is he just a shell web site pimping for the Clinton campaign?

[mythology]

12. And Sanders supporters continue the proud tradition of unskewthepolls.com

in completely not understanding statistical polling.

Everybody was wrong on Michigan.

At 2:38 on the day of the Indiana primary Silver posted this to Twitter:

"Hmm. Polls have Clinton up in Indiana, but our demographic-based model has Sanders favored there by 7 points."

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/727615967182868480

Pretty accurate.

Oklahoma was a caucus which are very hard to poll, and if Clinton was predicted to have a 51% chance to win, then Sanders had a 49% chance to win. IE, they called it a pick em.

Likewise most of the states you ding him for not predicting had no polling because they were caucus states and caucus states by their undemocratic nature are hard to poll effectively.

I would find it embarrassing to know as little about polling as the people who are throwing mud at Silver do. It's even worse when it's an important campaign staffer.