|
Nate Silver vs. Karl Rove in a game of chess Who wins?
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Nate Silver's logic arguing against Trump, especially months after he remained the clear frontrunner and had huge leads in credible polls, was pretty specious and reflects badly on Nate's overall political judgment. There's no walking back from this except sheepishly (and dishonestly)saying "well, most idiot pundits got it wrong, so maybe it was just a huge outlier?" The whole "Trump only has 25% support of 25% of the electorate, dumbass Sheeple  " poo poo was embarassing to read even at the time
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Nate Silver assumes the game is actually battleship, while Karl Rove disputes the outcome of the 2012 general election again. Neither win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
His models were like a case study in what overfitting does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I like their weekly "slack chats" that inevitably end in "we don't have any basis for our speculation, so we'll just have to wait for the results"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
TYT is about the same as 538 (minus Cenk's Armenian genocide denial lol).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
I still check 538 because it used to be good:(
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:TYT is about the same as 538 (minus Cenk's Armenian genocide denial lol). TYT mostly just looks at the numbers and shames the pundits for not using the numbers they were right about trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
they gave trump a better chance to win iowa than NH lmbo they had no clue what they were doing this year on the r side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
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. No, like I said, a single exception doesn't disprove a rule in social science. Elections aren't based on immutable physical laws. Now, if Trump opens the door for other ultra-demagogues to hijack party nominations, then you could make the case invisible primary theory is busted. But I don't personally think that'll happen because Trump is such a singular phenomenon. Concerned Citizen posted:"just fine" other than the fact that bernie sanders has come very close for a candidate who has essentially no backing by the party. "Coming very close" isn't the same thing as winning, and if you believe betting markets Bernie has never even been without striking distance. I personally thought he was before Biden dropped out but that's not the consensus. G-Hawk posted: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. I do agree 538 has too much punditry now, but as punditry goes it's pretty good. Laphroaig posted:Also he's just tweeting incomprehensible gibberish now: Yasser Arafatwa posted:what completely meaningless statements He explained what he meant in an article. The "high floor" is because Trump's supporters are so loyal and he hasn't taken the less-loyal ones from Carson or Cruz yet. The second tweet is about how many voters supporting non-Trumps are vehemently opposed to him. It's basically just about how he's a really polarizing figure even among the GOP. TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Correlation is not causation. I didn't say it was. MaxxBot posted: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. That's definitely another factor. Skyl3lazer posted:Also it's not doing 'just fine' with dem primary, silver has been wrong at multiple junctions so far and keeps moving his goalposts. Silver said like 8 months ago "Bernie has a good chance to win New Hampshire, and some chance to win Iowa, but is very unlikely to win SC, and probably won't get the nomination." That still sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
With all that said, I don't think 538 is perfect, just better than average punditry. I also really want Trump to win and at this point consider it likely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Dudue there's no defending them this year, trust me their models were trash. The problem is that they claim to not be doing punditry but in reality that's pretty much what they are doing while trying to justify it with some flashy irrelevant math.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
It's actually incredibly common in social science, molding the data to fit your gut thinking rather than the other way around. That's why it took them so long to change while the numbers indicated what was happening pretty early on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
It's better than average punditry in the sense that most of the pundit class are insulated dipshits whose idea of analysis is repeating cocktail party conventional wisdom as Immutable Mosaic Law, and whose conception of America ends at either the Hudson or the Potomac, depending on which city they live in He's been blindingly stupid this year, and yeah he seems to believe that somehow the metrics are being failed rather than that the metrics are failing
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:
nate silver said earlier this year that he could win IA and NH and lose every other state, and he's on track to win several states on Tuesday while losing IA. his model was bad, and frankly the #1 thing hurting bernie this year is the primary calendar, not necessarily his level of support (which is very much within spitting distance of hillary). if we flipped the calendar around so hillary's states were backloaded instead of front loaded, things would be pretty different right now. and here's the thing: looking at endorsements (which nate silver's model said should be a huge predictor), hillary should have be winning a landslide. like, not even close. seemingly every sitting congressperson, governor, senator, etc have endorsed her. she has a huge, huge lead in that department, perhaps the largest ever for a non-incumbent. if "party decides" was a good indicator, it shouldn't be this close. she shouldn't have lost NH, much less by 20+ points. the main method of figuring out nate silver's effectiveness is to ask if they've predicted the race better than a naive, unweighted averaging of polls. the answer is: not even close. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 20:05 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Actually they just released their method for early predictions: candidate_pred_ <- runif(1,0,100)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Might be a good idea to wait until Trump actually gets the nom before having this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Toilet Mouth posted:Might be a good idea to wait until Trump actually gets the nom before having this discussion. even if somehow magically rubio managed to pull out from the current tailspin he's in nate silver will still have been wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
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. It would not be an outlier. As has been mentioned, the sample is really too small to make that kind of a conclusion. As any loyal 538 reader should remember, the theory that the party decides has already stumbled a few times, in particular endorsements in the 2008 Democratic primary pointed to Hillary up until the end of the race. A Trump win would seriously challenge the underlying assumptions. This however is why I read 538. While not always right, for example when 538's primary model falsely predicted a Trump win in the Iowa Caucus, Nate Silver tries to understand the underlying processes that govern events. I mean it should be obvious to every drooling retard who's ever eyed the realclearpolitics graph of polling averages that early polls don't predict primary winners. Romney lead every New Hampshire primary poll for six months in 2008 before losing to McCain. Yet there were morons in this very forum calling Iowa for Carson in December. Basically I'm left scratching my head at why some people who so obviously haven't even read the arguments are eager to offer their own criticisms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
It's hilarious to me that people can't see Nate Silver and his website have become paid shills for the highest bidder. Wow, what a coincidence that this guy stayed away from punditry and predicted everything correctly 2 elections in a row, then right after his website becomes some ESPN Disney thing he suddenly turns into a dick Morris level moron barely less embarrassing than Jeb Bush, who posts article after article sucking GOPe and Clinton dick. "b-b-b-b-b but, the jelly nun! lol, conspiracy theories! I bet you believe in chemtrails!" Right, totally unbelievable. Wait, we saw transcripts released of HRC giving orders to the NYT and others? For fucks sake, we have indisputable proof that THE loving ONION of all things was sodomized by some shithead Clinton backing Zionist and forced to publish propaganda. It's time that we saw the 'serious people in the room' 'oh, dont be silly' 'skeptics' for what they really are, pussy, willfully ignorant wet blankets. The media in this country is beyond hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:even if somehow magically rubio managed to pull out from the current tailspin he's in nate silver will still have been wrong Exactly. Nine months of wrong predictions won't be validated just because Trump finally utters the magic phrasing of "mungo gently caress" that makes everyone turn on him Its not like Nate has been modeling the statistical likelihood that The Donald will have a sudden aneurysm and suspend his campaign to recover
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
the jelly nun posted:It's hilarious to me that people can't see Nate Silver and his website have become paid shills for the highest bidder. Wow, what a coincidence that this guy stayed away from punditry and predicted everything correctly 2 elections in a row, then right after his website becomes some ESPN Disney thing he suddenly turns into a dick Morris level moron barely less embarrassing than Jeb Bush, who posts article after article sucking GOPe and Clinton dick. lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
the jelly nun straight torching people watch out
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
the jelly nun posted:It's hilarious to me that people can't see Nate Silver and his website have become paid shills for the highest bidder. Wow, what a coincidence that this guy stayed away from punditry and predicted everything correctly 2 elections in a row, then right after his website becomes some ESPN Disney thing he suddenly turns into a dick Morris level moron barely less embarrassing than Jeb Bush, who posts article after article sucking GOPe and Clinton dick. This post is best read in Dennis Hopper's voice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Nate Silver vs. Karl Rove in a game of chess They have sex and put all the chess pieces inside each other because they're both gay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Are there any alternative evidence/statistics driven predictors out there that did a sincerely better job than the 538/Nate crew or is he really the only one mucking through this right now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Sam Wang and the Princeton Election Consortium
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/alabama-republican/ Rubio more than doubles his chances in the polls PLUS model because ~endorsements~
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Nate's been trash since Unskewed Polls correctly and rightfully kicked his rear end in the last election and he's been butthurt ever since I await the glorious return of Dean Chambers to make his return and tell God's Honest Truth about this election while Silver cries into his Excel sheets splayed over a lifesized model of Bill James' crotch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
the jelly nun posted:It's hilarious to me that people can't see Nate Silver and his website have become paid shills for the highest bidder. Wow, what a coincidence that this guy stayed away from punditry and predicted everything correctly 2 elections in a row, then right after his website becomes some ESPN Disney thing he suddenly turns into a dick Morris level moron barely less embarrassing than Jeb Bush, who posts article after article sucking GOPe and Clinton dick. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Michael Corleone posted:Nate dehumanizes himself and faces the Trump: He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark combover. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Nate Silver is a fax machine in a world of smartphones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/702979782615687169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Never trust a statistician, or a guy with a BA in econ pretending to be one, when it's quite clear they are looking to produce a certain result, because if you look long enough you'll always find it. The whole string of tweets is really sad because he seems really desperate to have been right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Are there any alternative evidence/statistics driven predictors out there that did a sincerely better job than the 538/Nate crew or is he really the only one mucking through this right now? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ When your model has consistently been more wrong than the simple unmodified data, you might have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Compared to previous elections what's the quality and quantity of polling been like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Heard they renamed him Nate Ingots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
After he melted down  
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
ScrubLeague posted:Also there just haven't been any "big" endorsements yet. ??? Two different former Presidents of the United States endorsed Jeb Bush. I don't see how you can get a more heavyweight endorsement than that. He lost anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
His dad and brother?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Nate Silver vs. Karl Rove in a game of chess Silver wins; he's actually a smart guy, just someone who was seriously wrong on Trump, and has been backpedaling clumsily since then instead of just owning it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 06:40
|
|
