Nate Silver on Trump: Trump Boom Or Trump Bubble?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PBY

Banned
Nate slightly more bullish on Trump that before. Interesting read nonetheless, some highlights below.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-boom-or-trump-bubble/

The news cycle over the past month has been favorable for Trump. The terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino played into his core message about the dangers posed by Islamic State. Meanwhile, there hasn’t been much going on to compete with this news, with no Republican debate since Nov. 10 and no other major shake-ups in the race such as a leading candidate dropping out.

Meanwhile, as Trump probably realizes, the media’s obsession with polls can become a self-perpetuating cycle: Trump’s being in the media spotlight tends to help him in the polls, which in turn keeps him in the spotlight, which in turn helps in the polls, and so forth.

But that will change as debates occur more frequently (there are three scheduled between now and Iowa) and other candidates begin to drop out of the race. Ted Cruz is also emerging as a potential foil to Trump, when one may have been lacking before. Most importantly, Republicans will begin going to the polls, starting Feb. 1 in the Iowa caucuses.

My guess is that most of these eventualities represent more downside than upside for Trump, simply because his dominance of the news cycle is so complete right now that other candidates almost can’t help but catch up. One of the usual rewards for winning Iowa or New Hampshire is a massive increase in media coverage, but Trump already has plenty of it. If Cruz or Rubio were to win one of those states, conversely, the newly won attention could help them convert their broad acceptability across the Republican electorate into first place in the polls and in future states.

So far, however, Trump has exploited every opportunity to keep his momentum going. And even if his candidacy is a bubble, there’s a chance that it won’t burst until after he’s started racking up delegates and primary wins.
 
Nate will be the last to finally admit that Trump is on his way to the general election, but it's good to see him start to come around.
 
Meanwhile, as Trump probably realizes, the media’s obsession with polls can become a self-perpetuating cycle: Trump’s being in the media spotlight tends to help him in the polls, which in turn keeps him in the spotlight, which in turn helps in the polls, and so forth.
Click to expand...
That's a completely tautological justification. The polls are good because the polls are good.
 
Wreav said:
Nate will be the last to finally admit that Trump is on his way to the general election, but it's good to see him start to come around.
Click to expand...

This article is literally what he and basically everyone else at 538 have been saying the whole time. The article just provides the numbers underlying this aspect of their position.
 
KHarvey16 said:
This article is literally what he and basically everyone else at 538 have been saying the whole time. The article just provides the numbers underlying this aspect of their position.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I will say, I think there is a little more hedging in this article than his past stuff, or maybe I'm reading that tone into the piece.
 
KHarvey16 said:
That isn't an argument that those polls are correct or useful, unlike the original use of that reasoning you reference.
Click to expand...

These polls may not be representative, but people constantly seeing Trump topping the polls and being by far the most recognisable candidate will certainly have some effect.

In many ways i'm expecting it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, as Trump probably realizes, the media’s obsession with polls can become a self-perpetuating cycle: Trump’s being in the media spotlight tends to help him in the polls, which in turn keeps him in the spotlight, which in turn helps in the polls, and so forth.
Click to expand...

Please explain how the top quote doesn't represent Nate Silver's reasoning?
 
PBY said:
My guess is that most of these eventualities represent more downside than upside for Trump, simply because his dominance of the news cycle is so complete right now that other candidates almost can’t help but catch up.
Click to expand...

"Trump is way too successful. This is terrible news for Donald Trump."

-Data Expert Nate Silver
 
So far, however, Trump has exploited every opportunity to keep his momentum going. And even if his candidacy is a bubble, there’s a chance that it won’t burst until after he’s started racking up delegates and primary wins.
Click to expand...

This could be hysterical. Trump wins Iowa, then New Hampshire, and then momentum carries him to the nomination.

And then his popularity among Republicans drops.. when it's too late.

I just posted in PoliGAF (yesterday?) that Trump could get the nomination, and then we see a series of articles with basically the theme of "My God, What Have We Done?!" (
<<<< best said/sung in David Byrne's voice
)

A temper tantrum or meltdown can feel good at the time when it's happening. But the headache and regret afterward? Oww.
 
BF24cWX.png


Basically.
 
PBY said:
Pretty much this. I will say, I think there is a little more hedging in this article than his past stuff, or maybe I'm reading that tone into the piece.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I like the word hedging. They've assigned probabilities to things. His continued success was assigned a particular probability (and I'm not sure what it was, other than I'm sure it was higher than the probability assigned to his overall success) and now that that success has continued, he recognizes the outcome was one he assigned less probability to.

Let's say I decide the probability if it raining tomorrow is 20%. If it rains, and I say "look at that, it rained and I didn't assign that the highest probability," I a) haven't been shown to be wrong and b) haven't conceded being wrong or even made any comment about the quality of my prediction. Unlikely things happening doesn't mean they weren't unlikely.
 
KHarvey16 said:
I don't know if I like the word hedging. They've assigned probabilities to things. His continued success was assigned a particular probability (and I'm not sure what it was, other than I'm sure it was higher than the probability assigned to his overall success) and now that that success has continued, he recognizes the outcome was one he assigned less probability to.

Let's say I decide the probability if it raining tomorrow is 20%. If it rains, and I say "look at that, it rained and I didn't assign that the highest probability," I a) haven't been shown to be wrong and b) haven't conceded being wrong or even made any comment about the quality of my prediction. Unlikely things happening doesn't mean they weren't unlikely.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, I may be reading in the tone to the piece.
 
HylianTom said:
This could be hysterical. Trump wins Iowa, then New Hampshire, and then momentum carries him to the nomination.

And then his popularity among Republicans drops.. when it's too late.

I just posted in PoliGAF (yesterday?) that Trump could get the nomination, and then we see a series of articles with basically the theme of "My God, What Have We Done?!" (
<<<< best said/sung in David Byrne's voice
)

A temper tantrum or meltdown can feel good at the time when it's happening. But the headache and regret afterward? Oww.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, although the overall Hillary hate will increase during the general that it probably won't matter for them.
 
KHarvey16 said:
I don't know if I like the word hedging. They've assigned probabilities to things. His continued success was assigned a particular probability (and I'm not sure what it was, other than I'm sure it was higher than the probability assigned to his overall success) and now that that success has continued, he recognizes the outcome was one he assigned less probability to.

Let's say I decide the probability if it raining tomorrow is 20%. If it rains, and I say "look at that, it rained and I didn't assign that the highest probability," I a) haven't been shown to be wrong and b) haven't conceded being wrong or even made any comment about the quality of my prediction. Unlikely things happening doesn't mean they weren't unlikely.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with Nate Silver is that he's been acting like Trump getting the nomination cannot happen, because his models don't account for it. The problem is that your models have failings, then.
 
Silver isn't saying anything controversial or even arguable, really. America loves a winner. It's not tautological outside of the fact that human nature actually embraces tautologies, and ultimately that's part of what polls are measuring.

It's no more tautological than "money makes money" - it's a truism, and for broadly mathematical and institutional (but logical) reasons.

A tautology is a closed loop - polls aren't. There are two gigantic input streams. Votes and Media. Just because they're stable doesn't mean noise can't be introduced later. In fact, as Silver notes, eventually the media will actually benefit (clickbait and ratings leading to strategic changes in the nature of coverage) from an underdog or controversial angle on the process. Then you get gigantic noise and adjustment.

And that's assuming Trump himself doesn't accidentally shit some anti-Christian or otherwise unpopular statement from his gaping noisehole.
 
Fluffhead14 said:
please guys, please explain how you're better at this than nate silver. fucking hilarious.
Click to expand...

I mean... there's not mystery here. Silver's predictions aren't based on any sort of hard math/complicated models. Its pretty straightforward. You're allowed to disagree with his predicted outcomes, so long as you understand that he's basing a lot of his predictions on precedent/past trends, essentially thinking that Trump reflects a new paradigm where the old data isn't applicable.

I thought his Jesse Jackson comp was pretty interesting.
 
Fuchsdh said:
I think the problem with Nate Silver is that he's been acting like Trump getting the nomination cannot happen, because his models don't account for it. The problem is that your models have failings, then.
Click to expand...

But he has never said it cannot happen. He's assigned non-zero probabilities, which by definition means he believes it can happen.
 
Fuchsdh said:
I think the problem with Nate Silver is that he's been acting like Trump getting the nomination cannot happen, because his models don't account for it. The problem is that your models have failings, then.
Click to expand...

He never said that it can't happen, just that it was unlikely to happen (under 20 percent) given historically proven predictors (e.g. endorsements) and historically unreliable predictors (e.g. primary polls).

And then people might retort, "But this election is different! The establishment support is poison!!" But it's really not.
 
I don't think anybody else could've predicted Trump's rise but Silver needs to just admit that Trump has about a 75% chance of winning the Republican nomination at this point.

Even if Cruz wins Iowa, there's no slowing down for the Trump campaign.

If Trump loses in New Hampshire or fails to place Top 3 in Iowa, will the hype around Trump die down.
 
Chips Fission said:
I wonder if Trump has real shot at Iowa and Hampshire. Wouldn't that basically mean Hillary vs. Trump end game?
Click to expand...

Winning the first two does not lead to a certain nomination, especially when they're roughly proportional in terms of delegate assignments. Their big factor is that not finishing in the top 3 in either state typically is a sign the candidate should get off the stage and start letting voters and support consolidate. With such a large field this year, it could genuinely be 5 or 6 candidates that Top 3 in one of the two states.

Bernie actually has a decent shot at taking New Hampshire, for example, and then winning no later states.

Bel Marduk said:
I don't think anybody else could've predicted Trump's rise but Silver needs to just admit that Trump has about a 75% chance of winning the Republican nomination at this point.
Click to expand...

Immensely stupid statement, and I don't think you actually believe that, or you'd be moving to make a complete and utter killing on the betting markets that put him at a little over 20%. With 75% odds, you'd be finding people lining up to do that weighted bet.

Just... no. No, no, no. Nobody that is actually willing to back up their words truly believes his odds are that high.
 
PBY said:
Trump definitely has a real shot at both. How would he not have a real shot?
Click to expand...

I'd say he has much less of a chance in Iowa because of the caucus system. Usually the most outwardly religious candidate wins. The last two were Santorum and Huckabee. The "What Will The Neighbors Think" factor is definitely in play here even though Cruz is no less crazy than Trump, he tries to justify it in an Evangelical Christian framework.

Yellowtail said:
Iowa Republican caucus is indeed a secret vote. You're confusing it with the very different Democratic caucus process.
Click to expand...

I was. Corrected.
 
Bel Marduk said:
I'd say he has much less of a chance in Iowa because of the caucus system. There's no secret vote and usually the most outwardly religious candidate wins. The last two were Santorum and Huckabee. The "What Will The Neighbors Think" factor is definitely in play here even though Cruz is no less crazy than Trump, he tries to justify it in an Evangelical Christian framework.
Click to expand...
Iowa Republican caucus is indeed a secret vote. You're confusing it with the very different Democratic caucus process.
 
KHarvey16 said:
I don't know if I like the word hedging. They've assigned probabilities to things. His continued success was assigned a particular probability (and I'm not sure what it was, other than I'm sure it was higher than the probability assigned to his overall success) and now that that success has continued, he recognizes the outcome was one he assigned less probability to.

Let's say I decide the probability if it raining tomorrow is 20%. If it rains, and I say "look at that, it rained and I didn't assign that the highest probability," I a) haven't been shown to be wrong and b) haven't conceded being wrong or even made any comment about the quality of my prediction. Unlikely things happening doesn't mean they weren't unlikely.
Click to expand...

I feel like a lot a people are missing this part. Great explanation.
 
TheOMan said:
I feel like a lot a people are missing this part. Great explanation.
Click to expand...

And people are allowed to update probabilities as more meaningful data is collected, and that doesn't mean that the initial probability stated was somehow "wrong". It isn't just about whether event A or event B happens. It's like looking at a 10 day forecast, a next-day forecast, and a morning of forecast, except in terms of presidential primaries, polls four months out are like the equivalent of twenty-or-thirty-day forecasts.
 
Neoweee said:
Immensely stupid statement, and I don't think you actually believe that, or you'd be moving to make a complete and utter killing on the betting markets that put him at a little over 20%. With 75% odds, you'd be finding people lining up to do that weighted bet.

Just... no. No, no, no. Nobody that is actually willing to back up their words truly believes his odds are that high.
Click to expand...

It seems unethical to put money on someone whose proposed policies are so much against everything I believe, otherwise I would.

Trump is third in PredictIt and seems to be gaining all the time, while the current favorite establishment candidate (Rubio) is falling.

What sequence of events do you think would knock Trump down? Something that hasn't happened already. Losing Iowa won't slow him down.
 
Iowa has meant nothing in a long time. Iowa is now that state that determines who is the Religious Nut Job of the year.

2008 = Huckabee
2012 = Santorum
2016 = Cruz

Cruz will outperform 2012 Santorum but he will not reach 2008 Hucakabee
 
The regression analysis using favorability and media coverage is impressively fucking good work. Damn. The data nerd is impressed at pulling that together without having access to dimensional analysis.
 
Bel Marduk said:
It seems unethical to put money on someone whose proposed policies are so much against everything I believe, otherwise I would.

Trump is third in PredictIt and seems to be gaining all the time, while the current favorite establishment candidate (Rubio) is falling.

What sequence of events do you think would knock Trump down? Something that hasn't happened already. Losing Iowa won't slow him down.
Click to expand...

In Nate Silver's words, "Betting is a tax on bullshit." People can make grandoise, improbable claims, but when nobody is actually willing to put money on it you can kind of infer how serious they.

Nate's 6 Stages of Doom article still holds true.

1) Polls this far out have little bearing on eventual primary voting, so the only indication that he is doing well is dubious in terms of how much predictive power it has.
2) There is no reason why Trump will benefit from the consolidation that establishment candidates benefit from as candidates drop out.

Rubenov said:
He has gotten rekket with his Trump predictions, so trying to align himself closer to reality now.
Click to expand...

Which Trump predictions have been wrong, exactly?
 
all I got say is wait for Florida.
If Trump whoops both Rubio and Jeb! in Florida come March, then Trump may have a shot at the convention
 
numble said:
That's a completely tautological justification. The polls are good because the polls are good.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you figure that self-perpetuating cycles don't actually exist simply because you can apply a fallacy to them. His point is that it's self-perpetuating in the absence of any other influences on the media cycle.
 
EatinOlives said:
What is it about Nate Silver that attracts all the "lululu your statistics won't save you now!!!!" crazies to these threads?
Click to expand...

This is a predominantly liberal forum.

Nate is hated mostly by conservatives. People don't really hate Nate here, we just find it funny how even Nate seems to have been surprised by Trump.

Everyone has.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Trump will be dictator like Putin
30
2K
Korranator replied
Trump has declassified JFK files
2 3
144
10K
Lord Panda replied
  • Locked
what do you think of the new banger 'Trump Gaza'?
39
2K
EviLore replied
  • Locked
Trump found guilty in hush-money trial
News 
1
2K
DKehoe replied
Real or Cake?
12
894
daffyduck replied
Top Bottom