- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Great prognosticator- Nate Silver &538- 75% Dems take House
Posted on 8/16/18 at 3:12 pm to Robin Masters
Posted on 8/16/18 at 3:12 pm to Robin Masters
quote:Your article does not say that.
Myth.
LINK wapo
0
Posted on 8/16/18 at 3:46 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
So, if Silver was correct, if they held the election 9 more times are you saying Hillary would win approximately 6-7 of those times?
That isn't what that means at all. It isn't a random probability like a coin flip. The percentage provided is to make the output of the model consumable. All of these misconceptions could be easily solved by just reading the information being referenced in the OP. He breaks down the model...what it means and what it doesn't mean. But that would be too much to expect from Poli Board. 
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:01 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
It still amazes me how upset the Poli Board gets about a statistical analysis.
I'll guarantee you that 75% of Trumpkins have never had a class in statistics or business statistics. it's obvious in every one of these threads.
This post was edited on 8/16/18 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:06 pm to Covingtontiger77
quote:Sounds about right, honestly.
75% Dems take House
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:11 pm to Covingtontiger77
Garbage in garbage out
Campaign hasn’t started yet and the narrative changes daily
His percent is meaningless - if it is wrong he will just say something changed
I say there is a 58.5737905% chance the republicans keep the house
Prove me wrong
Campaign hasn’t started yet and the narrative changes daily
His percent is meaningless - if it is wrong he will just say something changed
I say there is a 58.5737905% chance the republicans keep the house
Prove me wrong
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:16 pm to HubbaBubba
The polls for special elections and primaries have been very spot on so far.
I think the Dems do have the slight lead to take seats right now.
I think the Dems do have the slight lead to take seats right now.
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:19 pm to Covingtontiger77
Can someone explain to me why the left think they are going to retake the house? What has the left done to garner any support? Realistically, economy is great, jobs are up. The dems aren't running on anything other than "no trump". Via the 2016 election, that didn't turn out too well. So what are they running on that makes them think they will flip the house?
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:29 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
He had Trump as high as 35% on the eve of the election I believe.
Now, how far is 35% from 100%?
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:31 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:I don't know. When LSU beat Tennessee in the 2001 SEC Title game - despite being a huge dog and having their starting QB put out of commission in the 1st half - how far were their chances from 100% going into that game? Certainly you are not making the preposterous claim that things that end up happening were 100% chance to happen.
Now, how far is 35% from 100%?
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:33 pm to Covingtontiger77
When voter turnout for midterms is low, anything is possible.
Posted on 8/16/18 at 4:52 pm to HubbaBubba
Nate Plastic
Posted on 8/16/18 at 5:07 pm to Northwestern tiger
I am a right leaning independent and think that 75% is about the right probability. Silber missed the Presidential election but has been pretty damn good throughout his career.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 7:42 am to PresidentJerry
quote:Nope.
Right, he didnt say it was a 100% chance HRC would win, I think it was like 62-64% around election day so pretty much 1/3 chance Trump would win.
The prediction was 72%
In terms of Silver's reports which are always hedged, 72% is about as close to a guarantee as it comes. I don't hold that against him. He is simply doing composite analysis of others' polls.
I think, given the atmosphere, he discounted the obvious possibility of a reverse-Bradley polling effect far too much. But in the end, as Silver admits, 538 screwed-the-pooch in the 2016 contest.
Why is that so hard to come to grips with?
quote:
That remains our outlook today in our final forecast of the year. Clinton is a 71 percent favorite to win the election according to our polls-only model and a 72 percent favorite according to our polls-plus model.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:14 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Certainly you are not making the preposterous claim that things that end up happening were 100% chance to happen.
Things that did happen 100% happened. So, guesstimating that the event that did happen only had a 35% chance of happening is missing the target by a wide margin. Statistically , it's not an anomaly, but the people who set these percentages should acknowledge that they are only a mathematical stab in the dark
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:23 am to Robin Masters
quote:
bullshite.
What would have changed? Do you really think that many people change their vote or decide to vote/not to vote?
This isn’t a football game where variables can change throughout the game. Trump had a 100% chance of winning and if the election were held 10 times he would win all 10. The 64% chance was how likely the poll will be in choosing the correct winner.
He won 3 states (PA, WI, MI) by a COMBINED 80k votes. You don't think that's a slim and unreliable margin, statistically speaking?
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:24 am to NC_Tigah
quote:What?
72% is about as close to a guarantee as it comes.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:24 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:
So, guesstimating that the event that did happen only had a 35% chance of happening is missing the target by a wide margin.
well, that latest post tells me this thread isn't worth reading
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:28 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
well, that latest post tells me this thread isn't worth reading
Then you, my friend, understand how to accurately read the polls
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:30 am to NC_Tigah
They were the closest on DJT among most polls and I'm pretty sure about 5 days before the election it was like 67/33 or something. Anyway I dont care how Silver does.
I'd be willing to bet Nate Silver's pick in 2020 against you if you think he sucks that bad.
I'd be willing to bet Nate Silver's pick in 2020 against you if you think he sucks that bad.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:31 am to Vecchio Cane
what i understand is that you are clearly completely innumerate, yet confidently opining on probability
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News