ointer:Silver had Trump much higher than the bookmakers, other pollsters, other poll modelers. Yeah that is a bit of nuance and he won't get credit for it, but he did say that the 3rd party candidates in the race made the election much closer than everyone else was saying.
A lot of libs on twitter were actually going at him for it yesterday before they realized he was right.
A lot of libs on twitter were actually going at him for it yesterday before they realized he was right.
So did everyone elses. He was still underweight Clinton compared to the market and others attempting to do what he did.
His call on the 3rd party candidates making the election tougher to predict was obviously prescient.
If you woke up on Tuesday morning and said "Damn Nate Silver has Trump at 71% which corresponds to -250 and the betting markets have him at +500" then you printed money.
His call on the 3rd party candidates making the election tougher to predict was obviously prescient.
If you woke up on Tuesday morning and said "Damn Nate Silver has Trump at 71% which corresponds to -250 and the betting markets have him at +500" then you printed money.
Diasagree.
Nate is basically a Bayes-theorem practitioner, which is all about theoretical probability and nothing about certainty. So Silver is basically incapable of evaluating the inputs to his calculations. When your whole purpose is to use "other factors" to interpret the polls and beat them in accuracy, you have to be able to read those said factors outside of the numbers themselves. A good example would be taking oversampled polls and discarding them.
It is worth noting the most accurate poll of 2012 (Investor’s Business Daily) was also the most accurate this cycle - an outlier in Silver's flawed model.
Garbage in, garbage out... if the polls are wrong ("rigged" as Trump would say) so is Silver - and he was.
The polls+ model takes into account undecided voters better than the other models. It had about 15% of the voting bloc as "undecided", Trump did better with these people than Clinton.
Nate did a better job at pricing that into his forecast than almost anyone else.
Obviously if the polls are wrong then his forecasts will be off, but he still accounted for that variable better than others.
From what I read the polls used by silver are pretty damn accurate but the info is about a week behind real time.
This election exposed that 7 day delay more then the other elections because for whatever reason there was a big shift towards trump the last 3 days that the old polling data was not able to capture .
Normally there is not enough change in a week to fall out the +\-3% margin for error but this time there was.
Actually most of the surprise rust bucket states were still in the margin of error they just ALL shifted trump
This election exposed that 7 day delay more then the other elections because for whatever reason there was a big shift towards trump the last 3 days that the old polling data was not able to capture .
Normally there is not enough change in a week to fall out the +\-3% margin for error but this time there was.
Actually most of the surprise rust bucket states were still in the margin of error they just ALL shifted trump
The polls got Clinton's support wrong way more than Trump's. She came in under expectation because of lack of enthusiasm and people voting 3rd party.
Neither of these two is going to end up with many more votes than John Kerry it looks like. Who ran 12 years ago with about 8-10% less of the eligible voting base (would need to look that up for full accuracy but can't yet since final results not in)
Neither of these two is going to end up with many more votes than John Kerry it looks like. Who ran 12 years ago with about 8-10% less of the eligible voting base (would need to look that up for full accuracy but can't yet since final results not in)
There are more accurate models to protect elections than Nate Silver.
And it would seems oddsmakers are like pollsters - they take the lazy approach.
Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/
And yes, Choptalk, momentum IS everything:
“We don’t need the polls. Polls promote the laziest kind of journalism. So much of journalism is based on slavishly following the polls. You don’t even have to get out of bed to follow the polls. It’s lazy.”
And it would seems oddsmakers are like pollsters - they take the lazy approach.
Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/
And yes, Choptalk, momentum IS everything:
“We don’t need the polls. Polls promote the laziest kind of journalism. So much of journalism is based on slavishly following the polls. You don’t even have to get out of bed to follow the polls. It’s lazy.”
