|
"Now if you ignore all the details that run contrary to our theory, everything panned out according to the model" - Harry Enten  "Remember, the party decides so polls indicating a Trump lead are essentially meaningless, it's the endorsements that count." - Nate Silver
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
Still better at predicting than anyone who'll post in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Still better at predicting than anyone who'll post in this thread. already wrong 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
538 is still good, it's just now that they have the backing of ESPN and Nate is a "personality" and tweets more they're just easier to make fun of. Their sports coverage is retarded for real though. They should go back to the New York Times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
voodoo polling-nomics
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Why are they still weighing endorsements so highly when they haven't done jack poo poo so far?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
 poor nate
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Why are they still weighing endorsements so highly when they haven't done jack poo poo so far? because of a garbage political science theory that they and most other American pundits attached themselves to before this election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Zohar posted:because of a garbage political science theory that they and most other American pundits attached themselves to before this election. It's not garbage. It still elegantly explains a almost every primary season that's happened. The only reason it didn't this cycle is because Trump can completely break reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It's not garbage. It still elegantly explains a almost every primary season that's happened. The only reason it didn't this cycle is because Trump can completely break reality. yeah I'm sure it's just a magical and inexplicable event and not indicative of a serious flaw in the theory because after all the theory can't fail it can only be failed
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Also there just haven't been any "big" endorsements yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Zohar posted:yeah I'm sure it's just a magical and inexplicable event and not indicative of a serious flaw in the theory because after all the theory can't fail it can only be failed It's called an outlier. You're gonna have them in social sciences. And let's remember that the theory's doing just fine with the Dem primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It's called an outlier. You're gonna have them in social sciences. And let's remember that the theory's doing just fine with the Dem primary. Yeah no that's a handwave. If invisible primaries theory's description of how elections happen (or at least the form in which it's passed into received wisdom) were true, then Trump wouldn't be where he is. The fact that he is means that the theory's description of reality is not sound.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
The excuse will be "lol the party didn't even TRY to stop Trump!" despite obvious set-up questions, especially in the early debates. There are actually already a ton of articles and op-ed pieces about this. Protip: they tried to stop him, failed miserably, and just hoped he would go away and that "lanes" would magically anoint a moderate candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
five thirty eight is bad. they low key defend scalia and have flattering Hillary predictions on the front page even though they're for a state that isn't/wasn't voting any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/ in which Nate laid out 6 arbitrary "stages" trump can't get past, the last of which barely counts, and then declared Trump has a 2% chance to be the nominee because he had a 50% chance to clear each of those stages. Data. Science. This article is when 538 jumped the shark and became as bad if not worse than the punditry they originally mocked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It's called an outlier. You're gonna have them in social sciences. And let's remember that the theory's doing just fine with the Dem primary. "just fine" other than the fact that bernie sanders has come very close for a candidate who has essentially no backing by the party. "party decides" is garbage. its existence owes more to the fact that there are very few elections to sample from. endorsements only correlate with the winner because, not surprisingly, people endorse expected winners. but that's not predictive because endorsements don't actually win votes unless you happen to be an unpledged delegate. look at the vote in NH. hillary won *every* major endorsement in NH and she lost by 20+ points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
My favorite things about the polls is all of the intense rat-loving of Sanders happening on the Democratic side. Hillary knows how to loving politic, that is for sure; Ted Cruz looks like a creepy, pathetic baby compared to bringing the entire weight of the Democratic establishment and media to bear against an opponent. Remains to be seen if it will work, but there are already news stories about how Bernie Sanders has "surrendered" South Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Nate Silver originally focused on averaging polls and factoring in some fundamentals in a way that was fairly advanced as far as election analysis goes at the time, and that was good and innovative if not spectacularly difficult. These days 538 just churns out poo poo tons of content some of which is good but others are really speciously reasoned and basically the same kind of leap to conclusion punditry he originally cut through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:My favorite things about the polls is all of the intense rat-loving of Sanders happening on the Democratic side. Hillary knows how to loving politic, that is for sure; Ted Cruz looks like a creepy, pathetic baby compared to bringing the entire weight of the Democratic establishment and media to bear against an opponent. hey this is the nate silver is poo poo thread not the bernie thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:hey this is the nate silver is poo poo thread not the bernie thread Yeah but Nate Silver is just another paid hack in a sea of paid hacks
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Also he's just tweeting incomprehensible gibberish now: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/702683681132040192
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Also he's just tweeting incomprehensible gibberish now: what completely meaningless statements
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
does polling like this factor in people who will vote for trump for fun in the primary (in open states) but vote for whichever democrat wins in the Real Deal
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Nate Silver is so 2008. It's all about HA Goodman these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Yeah no that's a handwave. If invisible primaries theory's description of how elections happen (or at least the form in which it's passed into received wisdom) were true, then Trump wouldn't be where he is. The fact that he is means that the theory's description of reality is not sound. Look at this guy freaking out over an outlier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
what about that time he got arrested with a burrito and it was just like the michael brown murder
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
At every step of the process their predictions would have been more accurate if they just copy/pasted average polling numbers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It's called an outlier. You're gonna have them in social sciences. And let's remember that the theory's doing just fine with the Dem primary. Also it's not doing 'just fine' with dem primary, silver has been wrong at multiple junctions so far and keeps moving his goalposts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
the whole point of theories is that when you find something that breaks the theory you revise it to include this new information
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:the whole point of theories is that when you find something that breaks the theory you revise it to include this new information I mean OK, my theory is that X person will win and if they don't that just means that I predicted Y person would actually win I just updated my model
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Still better at predicting than anyone who'll post in this thread. Nope, lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It's not garbage. It still elegantly explains a almost every primary season that's happened. The only reason it didn't this cycle is because Trump can completely break reality. Correlation is not causation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Nate dehumanizes himself and faces the Trump: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/702499337914490880
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
We are 538 We are 538 We are 538 We are 538 We are 538 We are 538
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
*tosses dart, makes prediction*
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It's not garbage. It still elegantly explains a almost every primary season that's happened. The only reason it didn't this cycle is because Trump can completely break reality. It's not just Trump, the Republican base hates the GOP establishment right now, people like Jeb! who had no grassroots support and were propped up by elites didn't stand a chance this cycle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Texas is shameful going for that melted face dumbass edit: Alternatively, Texas is shameful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
Nate Silver vs. Karl Rove in a game of chess Who wins?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:24
|
|
