Nate Silver is not a god, stop putting him as an authority

[AZ Progressive]

An article from last year:

Nate Silver fared terribly in Thursday's UK election: In his pre-election forecast, he gave 278 seats to Conservatives and 267 to Labour. Shortly after midnight, he was forecasting 272 seats for Conservatives and 271 for Labour. But when the sun rose in London on Friday, Conservatives had an expected 329 seats, against Labour's 233.

But the problem went beyond the UK. "The World May Have A Polling Problem," Silver asserted. "In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well." Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where "Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide."
"[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry," Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. "There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry."

If Silver is declaring that the world has a polling problem, and that there may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry, what is Silver's added value in an election cycle? His ability to forecast elections is largely dependent on the accuracy of polling. Without that, what is his raison d'etre -- other than to point out how bad polling caused him to make inaccurate forecasts?

[hrmjustin]

1. Neither is Sanders.

[cali]

4. No one says he is, but you hilly supporters insisting

that we Bern supporters think he is. Typical.

[synergie]

6. Yes, your behavior is pretty typical, you abuse anyone who does not treat your man

as the infallible epitome of perfection you believe him to be.

[cali]

13. Sorry, as someone who has attended

tiny town halls with him, and met with him in D.C. when I worked for a federally mandated program, I have no illusions about him. He really can be grouchy and dismissive. But unlike Hillary, he's not a proven liar. He's not corrupt. That matters to me.

[kenfrequed]

14. Uh no...

The person you responded to was merely pointing out that Sanders supporters are characterized as cultists by those that support a different candidate. It really is kind of a sad and tired tactic and it actually doesn't convince any of us of anything.

Frankly, I cannot imagine why anyone would use it.

[roguevalley]

18. Hrc group said BS people were being 'groomed to by psychotic' a post banned and

one called him a 'crusty old Jew' so they are what they are. It might help them feel better to attack bernie people because their candidate isn't exactly setting the world or this place on fire.

[CajunBlazer]

23. It is the most fervent Bernie people who are giving all Sanders supporters that bad impression

But not one of you Sanders supporters seem to have a enough guts to call down your worst elements when they cross well over the line of civility continually.

These people, many of them who aren't even Democrats, are doing your candidate no favors. If Bernie wins the nomination, Bernie is going to need some of the most dedicated Democrats that those people are really ticking off. He will need those people to not only vote for him, but also to contribute their money and give of their time to work in his campaign.

Be careful that in trying to win the battle you don't lose the war.

[hrmjustin]

7. Ould have fooled me.

[cali]

15. You believe it because it is what you want to believe

[hrmjustin]

17. I believe it it because that is how you portray him.

[Gothmog]

16. My main gripe is the reliance that Sanders supporters are putting on worthless match up polls

Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuses me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race. If Sanders is really viable in the general election, then provide some evidence that does not depend of worthless match up polls

[NanceGreggs]

26. You don't understand.

Polls that show HRC ahead of Sanders are the product of corporate math, and not to be believed.

Polls that show BS beating all GOPers are accurate and beyond reproach.

Get it now?

DUH!

[Gothmog]

32. Silly me

I was trying to use facts

[99Forever]

35. Way to throw some uncalled for Sanders Hate out there.

Gotta love a one trick pony.

[NCTraveler]

2. I only see one person constantly references as a "carpenter."

And I would put Nate's intelligence up against the "carpenters" any day of the week.

[MineralMan]

3. Who is trying to deify him?

He's an odds-maker. He's a predictor. We won't know how accurate he is until later.

Does he have value in this election? No more or less than anyone else who posts opinions about who will win and why.

Not God. Just a guy with an opinion, based on whatever criteria it's based on.

We shall see.

[underpants]

11. Silver make fire. Silver bring rain for grass to grow for goats eat.

Silver show how string make pointy stick go fast kill animal to eat.



Sorry watching an old Star Trek Next Generation with my daughter about an undeveloped planet.

[Health Wagon]

33. Where the planet worships the Picard?

I remember that.

[underpants]

43. But this will make The Picard angry

My daughter is watching NG start to finish.

Who watches the watchers. Exactly.

[CajunBlazer]

24. Unless one of the people criticizing Nate Silver can show his/her credentials as a statistician..

... I will value Silver's opinion over people who are simply ticked off because he is not predicting success for their candidate.

Sanders supporters would love Nate if he was predicting victory for their candidate. This is the biggest problem with Bernie's supporters - they don't seem to live in the real world; they live in a world that they invent in their dreams and aspirations every day..

[NorthCarolina]

5. In December he was predicting >70% HRC, and <20% Bernie in Iowa

In retrospect, that "prediction" seems to have been modestly incorrect.

[synergie]

8. Retrospect? The actual caucus in several days away, you have to wait til

it's over to "retrospectively" analyze anything.

[Kentonio]

10. I don't think its too early to call that prediction very, very wrong.

[mythology]

41. I think that was for odds of winning not percent of votes

So it's not really able to be proven right or wrong.

[Kentonio]

42. Yeah you can't disprove odds via the result its true

But this whole thing of saying she still has a 70-80% chance of winning when the polls were neck and neck and he's now pulling ahead just leave me going 'huh?'.

[99th_Monkey]

9. +100 nt

[CajunBlazer]

20. Actually right this minute Silver is predicting - 80% HRC, and <20% Bernie in Iowa

Put that in you pipe and smoke it.

[Health Wagon]

34. No. You smoke it.

It'll be bernie with more than 65%, and hill doesn't even meet the threshold (guess who is holding her back - M'OM!)

Iowa caucus prediction.

[CajunBlazer]

38. Have you ever even taken a statistic course?

Yea, I didn't think so

[ChisolmTrailDem]

12. Yea, it didn't take much money or influence to...ahem...steer him in the right direction. nt

[CajunBlazer]

19. Evidently you didn't see Nate's predictions state by state for the last two elections.....

... that is the last two Presidential elections in this country in 2008 and 2012. In 2008 he correctly predicted the results in 49 of 50 states. He missed only Indiana, a heavily red state which surprising went for Obama. In 2012 he went 50 to 50.

Now if he can do that I think he successfully predict how Democrats will vote in those same 50 states this time around.

You can shoot off mouth now because Silver isn't predicting success for your candidate, but know this - if you bet against Nate, you do so at your own peril.

[merrily]

31. He's been way off in this cycle though and this cycle is the one we're in now.

He's had to backpedal again and again.

[Health Wagon]

36. Lately Nate's been a failure

The UK, Canada elections as well as the Scottish referendum are his most glaring recent examples.

[CajunBlazer]

40. We'll see in 6 days, won't we?

As someone who had studied polling and statistics I can tell you that no projection is absolute. After all, even Silver's calculations show that Bernie has a 20% chance of winning. That's not good odds, but it isn't 0%, so there is still hope for your candidate.

Statistics is a hard science, number are numbers, they don't take sides. There is always a possibility that much of the data on which calculations are based could be wrong - unlikely, but possible. There can also be last minute events that the numbers can account for - like President Obama essentially embracing Hillary's candidacy - I don't think anyone would have predicted that. Another kind of "surprise" could also occur between now and the Iowa caucus which could favor Bernie. No one including Nate has a crystal ball. The numbers which Silver is using in his calculations have a shelf life.

However, all of that aside, you need to ask yourself a simple question: Wouldn't you rather that have Nate Silver predicting an 80% chance of a Bernie Sanders win? Sorry, that's a rhetorical question.

[uponit7771]

21. Yeah, Silvers high hit rate doesn't mean crap !! We need more unicorns and magic asterisks

... in those polls or they not revolution !!

I get that right?

[reformist2]

22. He failed to predict Bernie's surge. Pretty useless prognosticator, imo.

[Gothmog]

28. The bernie surge is restricted to four states with 90+% white vote

Has that surge shown up in any state that does not have 90+% white voting population?

[merrily]

30. That's a different issue from Silvers' failure to predict correctly.

[Quixote1818]

25. Nate is good at reading polls but sub-par at predicting trends

He was predicting Trump to be out of it months ago and never expected Bernie to get this close in Iowa and NH. He simply does not have his finger on the pulse of the votes and relies way too much on old voting models that simply are not holding up this election.

[Gothmog]

27. Nate has a great track record

I am amused that the Sanders people dislike Nate. Romney and Rove did the same and that did not work out for them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

Silver published the first iteration of his 2012 general election forecasts on June 7, 2012. According to the model, at that time Barack Obama was projected to win 291 electoral votes—21 more than the 270 required for a majority. Obama then had an estimated 61.8% chance of winning a majority.[77]

On the morning of the November 6, 2012, presidential election, the final update of Silver's model at 10:10 A.M. gave President Barack Obama a 90.9% chance of winning a majority of the 538 electoral votes.[78] Both in summary tables and in an electoral map, Silver forecast the winner of each state. At the conclusion of that day, when Mitt Romney had conceded to Barack Obama, Silver's model had correctly predicted the winner of every one of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.[79][80] Silver, along with at least three[81] academic-based analysts—Drew Linzer,[82] Simon Jackman,[83] and Josh Putnam[84]—who also aggregated polls from multiple pollsters—thus was not only broadly correct about the election outcome, but also specifically predicted the outcomes for the 9 swing states.[85] In contrast, individual pollsters were less successful. For example, Rasmussen Reports "missed on six of its nine swing-state polls".[86][87][88]

[Health Wagon]

37. Track record is in the toilet lately.

Example: Canada, UK and Scottish elections.

[Cosmocat]

39. Last time Nate was vilified like this was the 2010 mid term

He pretty much had that nailed, and a lot of folks here didn't want to accept it.

More republican like thinking from from chest beating progressives - discount data when it does not jive with what they want want to think.

[merrily]

29. Silvers has been in the tank for Hillary from the jump.

[VulgarPoet]

44. Would I like to believe it? Yes.

Is there proof of it yet? I've not seen it. If you have proof of this, one Sanders supporter to another, please kick it over here. Otherwise, this is just giving the DINO supporters ammunition.

[merrily]

45. Have you been following his writings on this?

I really don't care whether I give anyone ammunition or not.

But, what did I give them ammunition for? To say "No, he wasn't?"

[VulgarPoet]

46. Basically, more cannon fodder trying to say that

"We're all just conspiracy theorists and not real democrats because we don't want a proven liar in the White House again".

[merrily]

47. I should start providing you links and analysis because someone else may lie about

what I said? Please think about that for a minute.