• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Poor Nate might have a problem..

head of joaquin said:
Yes, yes, that conspiracy theory.

Man, don't you cons get tired of your own memes.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the left's favorite meme? :lamo

There are arguments for or against. Only time will tell which assumptions were reflected in the actual turnout.
 
AdamT said:
He doesn't have a turnout model. He aggregates state and national polls. He weights them according to their past performance and by the house effect they've shown throughout the election. He balances the national polls and state polls. He also includes economic conditions in his model, though he says the weight of the economic effect is phased out towards election day.
Click to expand...

Best to read it from the horse's mouth: Methodology - NYTimes.com
 
Nate Silver's good at what he does and the only people who don't think that are dumb conservatives. I say "dumb" conservatives and not all conservatives because the first person who "introduced" me to Nate Silver is a conservative and he is very intelligent. It's too bad that so much of the right is delving so deeply into the abyss of uneducated, irrational desperation.
 
Fisher said:
Isn't that the left's favorite meme? :lamo

There are arguments for or against. Only time will tell which assumptions were reflected in the actual turnout.
Click to expand...

No, there are no factual arguments for any conservative meme. They're fact free. The point is to tell a narrative not the truth. Getting into a factual argument with rightwing noise machine noise just reinforces the meme (as George Lakoff has shown)

So there's not point in wasting time on the rightwing's deluded "libral media" meme. The way to oppose it is to expose it as a meme. It is unrelated to facts and we don't need to rebut it factually.
 
Looks like one side has the polls they like and the other has the polls they like. Same with news organization, commentators, experts, and on and on. Two orthogonal world views.

Surely we will find what the truth is on election day.
 
The great thing about Nate is that he can adjust the model later if Obama wins. Nate will come under a mixture of scrutiny and fanfare for the same reason: it's a close race. If Obama wins, his formula largely stays intact and so does his reputation. That being said, he will probably adjust his model with the knowledge that his reputation is only as good as his results come to bare in the election. So if he was overconfident, overzealous, then I think self-interest would override his partisanship (of which is well known).
 
LowDown said:
Looks like one side has the polls they like and the other has the polls they like. Same with news organization, commentators, experts, and on and on. Two orthogonal world views.

Surely we will find what the truth is on election day.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on it. This one is going to take some time to call...
 
Thanks for the update Pete. Most welcome news indeed!!!!
 
Fiddytree said:
The great thing about Nate is that he can adjust the model later if Obama wins. Nate will come under a mixture of scrutiny and fanfare for the same reason: it's a close race. If Obama wins, his formula largely stays intact and so does his reputation. That being said, he will probably adjust his model with the knowledge that his reputation is only as good as his results come to bare in the election. So if he was overconfident, overzealous, then I think self-interest would override his partisanship (of which is well known).
Click to expand...

I'd agree, you'd think he would adjust his prediction. Unless of course he is that much of a genius that he risks everything and just goes 100% that Obama will win. Well, I have a sneaky suspicion that Romney could win in a landslide. Who knows!
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Nate Silver's good at what he does and the only people who don't think that are dumb conservatives. I say "dumb" conservatives and not all conservatives because the first person who "introduced" me to Nate Silver is a conservative and he is very intelligent. It's too bad that so much of the right is delving so deeply into the abyss of uneducated, irrational desperation.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he is good, but this time it looks he will be dead wrong.
 
Amigo said:
I'd agree, you'd think he would adjust his prediction. Unless of course he is that much of a genius that he risks everything and just goes 100% that Obama will win. Well, I have a sneaky suspicion that Romney could win in a landslide. Who knows!
Click to expand...

My intentions were to offer qualified backing of Nate Silver. I think he is a smart man, but I also think he is a partisan that is also in a field where predictions are incredibly hard to maintain with confidence. According to interviews with him, he knows most of that (minus his partisanship potentially affecting his analysis), so I would expect to see him change it up. He knows in that field you are probably going to be wrong more than you are going to be right, and I know he will adjust after November. The only question is will his readers figure that out or will they rely upon his superstar status?
 
Amigo said:
Yes, problem is that the polls are wrong.
Click to expand...

You can't say that with any certainty until wednesday. Until then, it's just wishing.
 
Amigo said:
Dick Morris = 20 years of experience.
Nate Silver = 4 years.

Looks like you guys are jumping the gun on Silver. ;)
Click to expand...

I have never heard of Silver - but I know of Dick Morris and I have been disappointed in his prognostications many times. He sounds good when he talks, but I'm not so sure of his credibility. I think he is just puffing himself up.

I would love to be able to believe what he says about this election, but I won't get my hopes up based on Morris' analysis.

Where do you see Silver's polls? I have heard his name mentioned, and that he is predicting an Obama victory, but I haven't seen any of his poll results or projections.

Is he really just in this polling business since the last election? Did he really predict the GOP tsunami in '10?? Seems that would have been big news - don't remember hearing his name back then as the "next great prognosticator." Seems Rasmussen has that tag.
 
Rokkitsci said:
I have never heard of Silver - but I know of Dick Morris and I have been disappointed in his prognostications many times. He sounds good when he talks, but I'm not so sure of his credibility. I think he is just puffing himself up.

I would love to be able to believe what he says about this election, but I won't get my hopes up based on Morris' analysis.

Where do you see Silver's polls? I have heard his name mentioned, and that he is predicting an Obama victory, but I haven't seen any of his poll results or projections.
Click to expand...

He was hired by NY Times after his amazingly accurate predictions in the 2008 election. You'll find his predictions and evaluations here:

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

... and your right to distust Dick Morris and his predictions. The guy is a huge partisan retard who will say whatever whose paying him wants him to.
 
Amigo said:
It would show that the big money machines by the dems won. ACORN, SEIU, OSI, so on..
Click to expand...

That is laughable at so many levels. Big money machines of the dems???? Seriously???? The largest contributors to the elections are Republican Super PACs and Republican individual donors. Sheldon Adelson has individually donated almost twice as much money as SEIU ($56M vs $30M).

Outside groups have spent $840 million on 2012 election - KansasCity.com

PAC Track

Sheldon Adelson Leads Super PAC Mega-Donors To Dominance In 2012

Acorn??? there you are really joking or terribly mis-informed. First off, Acorn is gone. Second, Acorn never had any money. I can assure you that Mitt Romney has more cash in his wallet on any given day then Acorn ever had in its bank accounts. Acorn had people, but not money.

If the Regressives lose, its because they screwed up. It was theirs for the taking. They just choose to nominate the least clown-like candidate from a field of clowns.

Fear not, Christie has set himself up well for a run in 2016.


BTW. Nate Silver is not saying that Obama will win; only that he has an 80% chance or 1-4 odds of winning. If the weatherman says there is a 20% chance of rain, and it rains, was he wrong?
 
upsideguy said:
BTW. Nate Silver is not saying that Obama will win; only that he has an 80% chance or 1-4 odds of winning. If the weatherman says there is a 20% chance of rain, and it rains, was he wrong?
Click to expand...

That's true, but the reality is that his reputation depends upon his picking winners. His career depends on it.

Strangely enough there is a guy named Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium who has been even more accurate than Silver in the last two elections, but who gets only a fraction of Silver's media attention. He presently gives Obama a 96% to 99% chance of winning. :shock:

http://election.princeton.edu/
 
AdamT said:
That's true, but the reality is that his reputation depends upon his picking winners. His career depends on it.

Strangely enough there is a guy named Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium who has been even more accurate than Silver in the last two elections, but who gets only a fraction of Silver's media attention. He presently gives Obama a 96% to 99% chance of winning. :shock:

http://election.princeton.edu/
Click to expand...
That's interesting, thanks.
 
pbrauer said:
That's interesting, thanks.
Click to expand...

NP. I actually got the link from 538. Unfortunately the site crashed the other day and a lot of the links are still down. You can get most of by clicking the "cached copy" link that appears when you click on the dead link.
 
Rokkitsci said:
I have never heard of Silver - but I know of Dick Morris and I have been disappointed in his prognostications many times. He sounds good when he talks, but I'm not so sure of his credibility. I think he is just puffing himself up.

I would love to be able to believe what he says about this election, but I won't get my hopes up based on Morris' analysis.

Where do you see Silver's polls? I have heard his name mentioned, and that he is predicting an Obama victory, but I haven't seen any of his poll results or projections.

Is he really just in this polling business since the last election? Did he really predict the GOP tsunami in '10?? Seems that would have been big news - don't remember hearing his name back then as the "next great prognosticator." Seems Rasmussen has that tag.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if Silver is trying to be the Democrat copy of Dick Morris. I'd say he might bluster like Morris has.
 
Rokkitsci said:
I have never heard of Silver - but I know of Dick Morris and I have been disappointed in his prognostications many times. He sounds good when he talks, but I'm not so sure of his credibility..
Click to expand...

Are you seriously telling me that Condi Rice didn't win in a landslide over Hillary in 2008?!
 
Here is something I picked up from his blog, on the side:

Scenario Analysis

How often the following situations occurred during repeated simulated elections.

Electoral College tie (269 electoral votes for each candidate) - 0.3%

Recount (one or more decisive states within 0.5 percentage points) - 9.4%

Obama wins popular vote - 78.5% As I have indicated, saying it is that likely is a big gamble.

Romney wins popular vote - 21.5% Same here.

Obama wins popular vote but loses electoral college - 2.0% That is quite correct.

Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college - 4.4% And this scenario is much more likely. So he has it right here.

Obama landslide (double-digit popular vote margin) - 0.5% 0.0% would be about right, ain't gonna happen!

Romney landslide (double-digit popular vote margin) - <0.1% 52.5% would be about right for Romney to win a landslide. I'm not saying this because it is what I want, it's just what I see happening, just like 2008.

Map exactly the same as in 2008 - <0.1%

Map exactly the same as in 2004 - <0.1%

Obama loses at least one state he carried in 2008 - 99.9%

Obama wins at least one state he failed to carry in 2008 - 5.4% No chance at all. But 5.4% is close enough.
 
Amigo said:
I was referring to this election cycle, as I stated in the post you quoted.




Dick Morris = 20 years of experience.
Nate Silver = 4 years.

Looks like you guys are jumping the gun on Silver. ;)
Click to expand...

And nate silver has had way more accurate predictions than Morris has had in 20. He wrote a book predicting that the 2008 election was between Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. One of them didn't even run for Christ's sake, lol. You are showing your bias. Silver has demonstrated time and time again that his models are incredibly accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom