- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nate Copper officially tarnished
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:09 am to Midget Death Squad
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:09 am to Midget Death Squad
No pollsters gave Trump much of a chance, but Nate gave him more of a chance than anyone and actually caught a lot of shite about.
1
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:10 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:
Nate Cardboard
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:10 am to Korkstand
you can call it hedging but his numbers start to like Trump a lot more than Real clear politics or any other model. Then last night at around 9pm he called it a victory for Trump
I think the real people that this board should be hating on is the clowns at the Ringer and Keepin' it 1600
I think the real people that this board should be hating on is the clowns at the Ringer and Keepin' it 1600
This post was edited on 11/9/16 at 10:14 am
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:14 am to Dire Wolf
quote:
his numbers start to like Trump a lot more than Real clear politics or any other model. Then last night at around 9pm he called it a victory for Trump
That's called seeing reality and adjusting on the fly so he can say he was right. That's also called bullshite
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:18 am to Korkstand
quote:
. That's it. Unlikely things can and do happen all the fricking time. That's why everything he says is in terms of probabilities and not absolutes.
Yeah..... and what was his commentary on missing the Trump primary win? Oh yes - he ignored the data on purpose. He is a liberal shell
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:20 am to Midget Death Squad
Nate was the only modeler who even gave this outcome any realistic chance; just look at this argument with the Huffington Post writer. Here is an article from mid-September How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote and a more recent one from Nate last Monday. The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing
It's clear that despite their overall prediction, 538 considered this as a reasonable possibility. A 30% chance of winning represents pretty good odds when you consider it's better than guessing 2 coin flips in a row (25% chance).
quote:He gave Trump better odds of having of this specific outcome than the other modelers had Trump winning the election based on all possible outcomes.
There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote.
It's clear that despite their overall prediction, 538 considered this as a reasonable possibility. A 30% chance of winning represents pretty good odds when you consider it's better than guessing 2 coin flips in a row (25% chance).
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:21 am to Midget Death Squad
He was arguably the most accurate aggregator this cycle. I don't understand the hate for this guy.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:24 am to igoringa
quote:The "prediction" was made months before the first primary/caucus, when there were about 20 candidate. He even said that it was a guess (i.e., not an objective model) and has expressed regret in making that.
Yeah..... and what was his commentary on missing the Trump primary win? Oh yes - he ignored the data on purpose. He is a liberal shell
I don't know why people keep using that when he admitted it was just a guess at the time when there was very little reliable data to make any accurate prediction.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:26 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
He was arguably the most accurate aggregator this cycle. I don't understand the hate for this guy.
It is probably cause he made some pretty bold statements during the primaries and didn't have faith in the numbers saying trump would win them. His model had trump winning the primaries and he kept saying that he wouldn't. He became a pundit along with his other podcasters.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:26 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Yeah. He was heavily criticized by the left for giving Trump a pretty good chance of winning and talked extensively about the potential for this very outcome.
He was arguably the most accurate aggregator this cycle. I don't understand the hate for this guy.
He can be a bit insufferable, but at least he has had a more objective analysis than your typical Pundit. And clearly he is better and modeling than the other aggregators.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:29 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
No pollsters gave Trump much of a chance, but Nate gave him more of a chance than anyone and actually caught a lot of shite about.
This.
538 has been all over the place this election - which is pretty well in line with everything about this election - but they far and away gave Trump the highest chance to win while others had Clinton at >99% chance. They had Trump between 30 and 38% over the course of the final week.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:30 am to Dire Wolf
quote:And he had admitted that mistake. How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump What more is he supposed to do when he admits that?
It is probably cause he made some pretty bold statements during the primaries and didn't have faith in the numbers saying trump would win them. His model had trump winning the primaries and he kept saying that he wouldn't. He became a pundit along with his other podcasters.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:32 am to Midget Death Squad
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:32 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
quote:
He was arguably the most accurate aggregator this cycle. I don't understand the hate for this guy.
Yeah. He was heavily criticized by the left for giving Trump a pretty good chance of winning and talked extensively about the potential for this very outcome.
Silver is one of those guys who is sort of unfairly maligned by both sides despite simply being a statistician. The right hated him for correctly predicting every state in 2012, and the left hated him for giving Trump a larger chance to win than proactively everyone (~30% on the day of the election).
He was also one of the only pollsters out there who was mentioning the decent chance of a popular/Electoral vote split.
This post was edited on 11/9/16 at 10:34 am
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:33 am to Midget Death Squad
Michigan in the primaries was a disaster for him.
Then he shite the bed during the World Series and the election.
Then he shite the bed during the World Series and the election.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:35 am to Korkstand
quote:
He reports what the numbers imply. That's it.
No, he attempts to shape attitudes. He expects to get paid for his uncanny accuracy. You cant expect that, and be this wrong. Sorry
He grades pollsters, and then weights his averages based on the polls he likes, and those he doesn't. He then uses his biased data to prop up a desired outcome
He makes predictions based on biased views, his polls plus forecast, etc. Everyone knew the polls were over sampling minorities and college women, but he didn't care. Even after the polls closed, he said the LAT polls would be one of the least accurate, yet them and IBD daily were the onlt 2 pollsters that were remotely accurate
Hes a fraud. The internals never matched his predictions. Clinton camp cancelled the fireworks based on internals, yet Nate gave Trump less than 30% chance of winning
He got the midterms wrong, Brexit wrong, and now this race. Hes a huxster
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:43 am to RobbBobb
quote:He was the only one that gave this outcome (popular-electoral split for Trump) a chance. And he gave that a far better chance than the other modelers gave him to win by any outcome.
He expects to get paid for his uncanny accuracy. You cant expect that, and be this wrong. Sorry
I mean he can't just change the polls, which showed Hillary leading. So it all the other sites gave him <10% chance and he gave him a 30% chance, he clearly had a better sense of the election, despite using the same polling.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:46 am to Ssubba
quote:Yeah he gave Trump about as much of a chance as the polls would allow. The left was giving him shite before last night for saying he had a chance at all.
Wasn't he the only pollster to give him a legit chance?
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:46 am to RobbBobb
quote:And 30% is a fairly likely scenario. It's better odds than correctly calling two coin flips.
yet Nate gave Trump less than 30% chance of winning
So if there are two heads or tails in a row in two coin flips, it doesn't change the fact that the probability of that outcome was 25%, even though it will happen a lot.
This post was edited on 11/9/16 at 10:47 am
Posted on 11/9/16 at 10:49 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
I mean he can't just change the polls,
And yet he did
He knew the polls were oversampling in favor of Hillary. and he kept giving those pollsters A or B ratings
Polls that were favorable to trump were not used, or weighted very lightly
So he did change the polls, and the way he applied them. He assured everyone that Trump would not be the nominee, nor the president. He left just enough room so that biased people could say, but he said this might happen . . . . No, he really didnt
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News