Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
21. Same with the DU prognosticators.
Thu Nov 5, 2020, 09:28 AM
Nov 2020

I cringed every time I saw a predictions for a landslide, a blue wave, a rout, a humiliation. But probably not as much as they’re all cringing now.

I never understand why they do it. Pretty much the same ones who were wrong in 2016. But still they continue.

All he does is average the polls SouthernCal_Dem Nov 2020 #1
Yeah and his "averaging" has proven useless. boston bean Nov 2020 #3
Let's see how the final numbers look SouthernCal_Dem Nov 2020 #6
Ohio was way way off. So was WI. MI and PA Tribetime Nov 2020 #58
... and FL In It to Win It Nov 2020 #62
It's a shit-in shit-out situation. He collects the public polling data from the "reputable" polling In It to Win It Nov 2020 #64
It's a little more complicated than that Jose Garcia Nov 2020 #12
You're correct SouthernCal_Dem Nov 2020 #22
No assertion of probability can be called "wrong" unless it's either 0% or 100%. Towlie Nov 2020 #39
It's not Nate Silver's fault that roughly 70 million Americans voted for fascism WSHazel Nov 2020 #2
No sinkingfeeling Nov 2020 #4
FFS really? How about you whine about the pollsters?? nt USALiberal Nov 2020 #5
No one would ever lie to a pollster. Right? IADEMO2004 Nov 2020 #7
While I agree with you, I don't think this is completely Nate Silver's fault. Claustrum Nov 2020 #8
He is bringing nothing to the table. boston bean Nov 2020 #11
So why don't you use the polling data and decide who will win? nt USALiberal Nov 2020 #16
Don't get me wrong. I stopped following him, 538 and any other pollsters right after Nov. 3. Claustrum Nov 2020 #27
True, but I think polls are going to have a lote less credibility going forward Miguelito Loveless Nov 2020 #18
He didn't take the polls. Might be a clue. Nt BootinUp Nov 2020 #9
So what is he adding except to give validity to these boston bean Nov 2020 #13
He said Trump had a 10% change of winning! You understand 10% happens correct? nt USALiberal Nov 2020 #19
His interpretation of the stats is pretty useful BootinUp Nov 2020 #61
He doesn't do his own polls. He uses polls done by pollsters. LisaL Nov 2020 #10
He's just a poll aggregator. Buckeye_Democrat Nov 2020 #14
You don't know what you're talking about Loki Liesmith Nov 2020 #15
+1000! nt USALiberal Nov 2020 #17
Who cares? gab13by13 Nov 2020 #20
Same with the DU prognosticators. cwydro Nov 2020 #21
I believed in 2016. Learned my lesson well. boston bean Nov 2020 #23
I actually felt better this time than in 2016. LisaL Nov 2020 #26
Yep. LisaL Nov 2020 #25
+1000! nt USALiberal Nov 2020 #31
Nate, in one of his last posts, MontanaFarmer Nov 2020 #24
Sometimes I think we should just wait to count the votes treestar Nov 2020 #28
Every cycle Dem2 Nov 2020 #29
Frustration is at the limitations of statistics-- and polls suffer the same issues hlthe2b Nov 2020 #30
Fuck - do you mean Trump just won? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2020 #32
Maybe he's not taking into account the cheating by Republicans. milestogo Nov 2020 #33
He's not, and he wrote that himself. Here's the link: Towlie Nov 2020 #34
Hard to account for USPS and hacking that leaves little to no trace JCMach1 Nov 2020 #36
+1, none of them are ... They minimize the affect of voter suppression uponit7771 Nov 2020 #42
I'll certainly give the aggregate model less credence Codeine Nov 2020 #35
Back To The Old Saw... ProfessorGAC Nov 2020 #57
It is actually playing out EXACTLY as he has been saying for the past month. cbdo2007 Nov 2020 #37
This isn't Silver's fault. Washington Post had a poll showing Biden up 16 points Azathoth Nov 2020 #38
How so? Did I miss something...has trump won? Captain Stern Nov 2020 #40
Polling needs to be replaced by an analysis of what is happening on social media Klaralven Nov 2020 #41
Heavy sarcasm? (nt) muriel_volestrangler Nov 2020 #44
Not at all. I'm completely serious. Klaralven Nov 2020 #45
Oh yeah, social media is oh-so-reliable. No one has ever detected any fake accounts muriel_volestrangler Nov 2020 #46
Social media knows a lot about posters, whether they are fake or not, bots or not. Klaralven Nov 2020 #53
Oh, there was me thinking this thread was about how to predict how people will vote muriel_volestrangler Nov 2020 #55
"in politics, truth doesn't really matter" -- not specifically about voting. Klaralven Nov 2020 #59
This thread is about "election predictions". ie "voting predictions". muriel_volestrangler Nov 2020 #60
Statisticians must help to get answers Bonn1997 Nov 2020 #43
I think the best bet moving forward BannonsLiver Nov 2020 #47
Cook Political Report was a failure MoonlitKnight Nov 2020 #48
Yeah a total disaster BannonsLiver Nov 2020 #49
Just about everyone was worse Rstrstx Nov 2020 #52
For the presidency, so far he's only missed on 2 Rstrstx Nov 2020 #50
He gives good catnip to political junkies like me, I'm glad he's around Alhena Nov 2020 #51
Far as I'm concerned, polling is dead Tarc Nov 2020 #54
Nate Silver gives you stats and shows you probabilities BusyBeingBest Nov 2020 #56
This is dumb BGBD Nov 2020 #63
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can we please kick Nate S...»Reply #21