Started By
Message

re: .

Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:07 pm to
Posted by LSURussian
Member since Feb 2005
134501 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:07 pm to
quote:

Despite giving Trump FAR better odds than any other forecaster,
Well, for starters, that's just not true.
Posted by Blizzard of Chizz
Member since Apr 2012
21398 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:09 pm to
quote:


Dio was a metal band during the 1980s. Wonder if it's him or a fan


Dio isn't a metal band. Ronnie James Dio was a metal God though in the 80's. Unfortunately, it isn't him. He died about 5 years ago from stomach cancer.


Dammit now I'm needing some fricking Dio

LINK

LINK
This post was edited on 11/11/16 at 12:13 pm
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:10 pm to
Yeah and with the exception of about 7 days over a period of 7 months, he had clinton anywhere from 80 to 96%

Those results don't get tested but all together they told people "he has no chance" and if he didn't get that then he's a fricking retard. He can't complain about polling data being the cause. He was such a dick to people saying those polls were wrong. He is focusing on national polls but 5 states were bat shite crazy wrong and if you remove eco and just look at the individual polling...it was all bat shite crazy wrong
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35379 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:12 pm to
quote:

If the polls can't reasonably predict the result, what are they good for.
But even with large state misses, they still have a fairly accurate representation of the electorate's views. Just because the average of the polls in Florida was only +0.2 for Trump, which gave Hillary a better chance of winning the state and election, doesn't mean the relatively close +1.3 Trump outcome and the 29 EC votes (58 EC or ~ 11% swing) completely negated the views.

And interestingly, the National polls will probably be more accurate than 2012, but because the error was in the opposite direction, it had a FAR greater impact on the outcome.
Posted by RobbBobb
Member since Feb 2007
33998 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:12 pm to
quote:

buckeye_vol

You are either Nate himself

Have had sex with Nate

Or are getting paid by Nate
Posted by tagatose
South Carolina
Member since Oct 2005
2031 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:12 pm to
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35379 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:13 pm to
quote:

Well, for starters, that's just not true.
I should have been more specific, he gave Trump a far better chance than the forecasters who use poll modeling.
This post was edited on 11/11/16 at 12:14 pm
Posted by Colonel Flagg
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2010
23477 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:14 pm to
The bigger point to take away from this is the modeling is so easily manipulated and Clinton should have never been proclaimed a sure winner by the media.
Posted by tagatose
South Carolina
Member since Oct 2005
2031 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:14 pm to


Dude has lost ALL credibility.
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:14 pm to
Yeah he wasn't wrong

He was wrong about EVERYTHING. Fine, but don't insult our intelligence defending yourself nate. That's what landed him here in the first place
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35379 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:15 pm to
quote:

You are either Nate himself

Have had sex with Nate

Or are getting paid by Nate
Despite the fact that you are "correct" doesn't somehow negate the fact that you continue to show little understanding of survey theory, and probability/statistics.
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:16 pm to
Your defending the model and the concept of odds

But don't dismiss his tweets, comments, podcasts and articles that were right there beside that model. The shite he's eating is well deserved.
Posted by uway
Member since Sep 2004
33109 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:16 pm to
Is he just totally ignoring the margins the polls were showing?
A week before the election, didn't the polls predict a blowout?

The last polling average I could find for Michigan showed +3.4 for Hillary.


This seems like a very shallow point for someone like Silver to make.
Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
172004 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:18 pm to
And ole miss won the west in 2003.
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:18 pm to
But it goes so far beyond that

I understand marketing, presentation, subtext and inference

People may not be venting things in a precise manner in regards to abstract theory but they're not stupid...they know what's up
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35379 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:19 pm to
quote:

But don't dismiss his tweets, comments, podcasts and articles that were right there beside that model. The shite he's eating is well deserved.
But he had a very good sense of the election. Below is my defense of him yesterday.

Nate discussed the very outcome
The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

He argued that the state races were far more uncertain
Election Update: National Polls Show Clinton’s Lead Stabilizing — State Polls, Not So Much

He argued that despite her polling, her position was much worse than Obama in 2012
Election Update: Why Clinton’s Position Is Worse Than Obama’s

He was forced to argue against the other modelers about Trump's chances
Election Update: Yes, Donald Trump Has A Path To Victory

He highlighted the uncertainty due to undecided voters
Election Update: Where Are The Undecided Voters?

He even had to defend Trump's odds when before the Comey bombshell where others were giving Trump less than 1% when Clinton had her largest polling margins
Election Update: Why Our Model Is More Bullish Than Others On Trump.

In addition, he even questioned Hillary's campaigning in Arizona while giving Trump credit for campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Not only is it justifiable for Trump to be campaigning in WI or MI—it's absolutely the correct strategy. Whereas Clinton in AZ is dubious.

He even went off on the hack liberals at Huffington Post who were criticizing him for giving Trump a good chance of winning.
Nate Silver rages at Huffington Post editor in 14-part tweetstorm
quote:

There's a reasonable range of disagreement. But a model showing Clinton at 98% or 99% is not defensible based on the empirical evidence.
The model is the model. It uses the data to make a prediction; however, I think he should be commended for actually analyzing the state of the races, including the campaigning choices and the uncertainty. While everybody else was predicting a landslide, he was arguing against that.
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:20 pm to
He spent 4 years being treated like a legend and figuratively blown at every turn

I don't know if that made him a prick or just exacerbated all of his personality traits that make him one
Posted by Xenophon
Aspen
Member since Feb 2006
42716 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:21 pm to
Agreed. Trump was pretty dam close to winning almost 40 states.
Posted by RobbBobb
Member since Feb 2007
33998 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:21 pm to
quote:

Despite the fact that you are "correct"




Even ole Nate has a CTR project going.

Its the lib go to move, in the Internet age
Posted by junkfunky
Member since Jan 2011
36230 posts
Posted on 11/11/16 at 12:22 pm to
quote:

Dammit now I'm needing some fricking Dio


I tend to get my fix every couple weeks. Listened all day yesterday.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram