Nate Silver on Trump: Trump Boom Or Trump Bubble?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Neoweee said:
Which Trump predictions have been wrong, exactly?
Click to expand...

Nate has basically been giving Trump single-digit chances to win the nomination the entire time. I mean, technically he hasn't won it yet so he's not "wrong," but Nate is clearly anti-Trump here. He doesn't get the numbers at all.
 
Plinko said:
Nate has basically been giving Trump single-digit chances to win the nomination the entire time. I mean, technically he hasn't won it yet so he's not "wrong," but Nate is clearly anti-Trump here. He doesn't get the numbers at all.
Click to expand...

The only suggestion that Trump is doing well is polls, which...

1) Are known to not be a strong predictive indicator of primary performance. (10 point MAE even the week before a vote)
2) He is doing poor in issues that are known to have far more predictive power, such as endorsements and net favorability.
3) His poll numbers are easily and justifiably explainable by media coverage during a time when relatively few primary voters are actually paying attention.

Nate is, at the very least, basing his odds on actual academic-quality research. His naysayers are basing their arguments on data that is widely known to be of very poor quality.

I think Nate is understating the odds a little bit (like, teens rather than 10%-ish), but he's a hell of a lot closer than people putting Trump's odds at 50% or better.
 
I don't think many here are disputing Nate's talent with data. If anything, they're questioning his interpretation of the data, and/or his application of past cycles' patterns/data to this specific cycle.

There is a difference.
 
HylianTom said:
I don't think many here are disputing Nate's talent with data. If anything, they're questioning his interpretation of the data, and/or his application of past cycles' patterns/data to this specific cycle.

There is a difference.
Click to expand...

We won't know this cycle is different till the vote actually occurs, will we?
 
Bregor said:
We won't know this cycle is different till the vote actually occurs, will we?
Click to expand...

Correct, but as of right now it does appear to be radically different. Jeb has almost all of the endorsements and he's barely hanging in there at 3% or so. Normally he'd be a lot higher up, last cycle while Romney was never in first he was always in second. If this cycle was like previous ones Jeb should be doing far better than he is, Rubio as well.
 
I do wonder if Trump can handle the heat once the actual primary votes start to come in. He can barely contain himself with preliminary numbers. Once the real deal starts, he might go completely apeshit.
 
Neoweee said:
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.



Which Trump predictions have been wrong, exactly?
Click to expand...

This far out? Iowa is a month and a half away. New Hampshire's primary is a week later. This is no longer far away -- Trump has been the frontrunner since July 6th. He continues to make outrageous and often incorrect statements -- his support just increases.

It honestly doesn't matter who drops out. According to the latest available poll (ABC/Washington Post, 12/15) Trump is at 38% of support. It would take Rubio, Bush and Christie to drop out -- and 100% of their support to bring Ted Cruz to equal Trump's support. An extremely unlikely scenario given the massive egos involved. Also, Ben Carson has joined Trump in threatening to leave the GOP if his conditions aren't met. Its very unlikely his supporters would fall in line under an establishment candidate.

This all must be very frightening if you are a supporter of the GOP.
 
Rubenov said:
He has gotten rekket with his Trump predictions
Click to expand...

Not really; to get rekt on a prediction your prediction would actually have to have not come true.

The only concrete thing Nate has predicted is that Trump won't win the nomination. But even that he has given a percentage odds for, which means he thinks it's possible.

Other than that he's merely said that during this time frame trump will face increasing scrutiny by the media; which did happen it just didn't affect Trump.

If Trump wins the nomination you can claim Silver was rekt; still many moons away.
 
Bel Marduk said:
This far out? Iowa is a month and a half away. New Hampshire's primary is a week later. This is no longer far away -- Trump has been the frontrunner since July 6th. He continues to make outrageous and often incorrect statements -- his support just increases.

It honestly doesn't matter who drops out. According to the latest available poll (ABC/Washington Post, 12/15) Trump is at 38% of support. It would take Rubio, Bush and Christie to drop out -- and 100% of their support to bring Ted Cruz to equal Trump's support. An extremely unlikely scenario given the massive egos involved. Also, Ben Carson has joined Trump in threatening to leave the GOP if his conditions aren't met. Its very unlikely his supporters would fall in line under an establishment candidate.

This all must be very frightening if you are a supporter of the GOP.
Click to expand...

The argument is that most primary voters don't make up their mind until the final weeks before voting. When most people haven't paid attention, media coverage alone correlates very highly with poll numbers, but not with final voting results.
 
PBY said:
I mean... if Trump wins does that even mean Nate was wrong?

Or does is mean that a low probability even just, you know, happened?
Click to expand...

That's the thing, you won't know. His supporters will still go "well he was using the right numbers and he's smart and stuff" and his naysayers will go "that Nate Silver is full of shit, man".
 
I think Nate was really on point with his Obama predictions and analysis of the data yadda yadda... but to me, he has a clear anti-Trump bias that may be clouding his judgment a bit during this election cycle.
 
Neoweee said:
The only suggestion that Trump is doing well is polls, which...

1) Are known to not be a strong predictive indicator of primary performance. (10 point MAE even the week before a vote)
2) He is doing poor in issues that are known to have far more predictive power, such as endorsements and net favorability.
3) His poll numbers are easily and justifiably explainable by media coverage during a time when relatively few primary voters are actually paying attention.

Nate is, at the very least, basing his odds on actual academic-quality research. His naysayers are basing their arguments on data that is widely known to be of very poor quality.

I think Nate is understating the odds a little bit (like, teens rather than 10%-ish), but he's a hell of a lot closer than people putting Trump's odds at 50% or better.
Click to expand...

Nate's problem, though, is similar to what happened to the republicans last election: he's using old data as a base for his predictions.

Remember the "unskewed polling" guy who acted as if the electorate would be identical in 2012 as it was in 2008? Romney et al bought into that. That's what Silver is basically doing. He truly believes that the establishment will once again unite behind a candidate and propel them to the top.

I've been saying for over a year that wouldn't happen this time around because of the conflict within the electorate itself. Republicans are fed up with establishment candidates. Silver has a huge problem with that and can't see why it is happening.
 
Neoweee said:
The argument is that most primary voters don't make up their mind until the final weeks before voting. When most people haven't paid attention, media coverage alone correlates very highly with poll numbers, but not with final voting results.
Click to expand...

I read fivethirtyeight regularly and am aware of Nate's arguments -- I just don't agree that his old models will work for this election. The Trump wave is unprecedented. Sam Wang at Princeton (who has a better track record even than Silver) has wisely said very little about the Republican primary.
 
PBY said:
I mean... if Trump wins does that even mean Nate was wrong?

Or does is mean that a low probability even just, you know, happened?
Click to expand...
...so whats Nate even doing then? Here let me create a website and I will write in big bolded letters "Trump's chances to win the GOP nomination are between 1% and 100%".
 
Rubenov said:
I think Nate was really on point with his Obama predictions and analysis of the data yadda yadda... but to me, he has a clear anti-Trump bias that may be clouding his judgment a bit during this election cycle.
Click to expand...

Problem is Nate has become part of the equation. Conservatives and especially Trump supporters detest Nate and would love to see him eat crow. Nate is also floating around within that Trump Bubble whether he knows it or not.
 
Nate's filling time with interesting commentary and observation until the real show starts.

His website doesn't shut off in non-election years.

I don't really see a problem with that.
 
Bel Marduk said:
This far out? Iowa is a month and a half away. New Hampshire's primary is a week later. This is no longer far away -- Trump has been the frontrunner since July 6th. He continues to make outrageous and often incorrect statements -- his support just increases.
Click to expand...

A month and a half is still far out. I believe it was that partisan hack Nate Silver who pointed out semi-recently that most primary voters don't even make up their mind about who they're voting for until a week or two beforehand.

RustyNails said:
...so whats Nate even doing then? Here let me create a website and I will write in big bolded letters "Trump's chances to win the GOP nomination are between 1% and 100%".
Click to expand...

Nate Silver's job isn't to say "Yes, Trump is definitely winning the nomination/election" or "NO, Trump is absolutely not winning anything." Statistical probabilities are just that, not certainties one way or the other. But his analysis is a little more nuanced and data-driven than what you're saying. I don't know if you actually have a problem interpreting this, though, given your post history in every single Nate Silver thread.

teruterubozu said:
Problem is Nate has become part of the equation. Conservatives and especially Trump supporters detest Nate and would love to see him eat crow. Nate is also floating around within that Trump Bubble whether he knows it or not.
Click to expand...

I find it very hard to believe that the average voter, conservative or liberal, even knows who Nate Silver is to vote for a candidate just out of spite.
 
Blader said:
A month and a half is still far out. I believe it was that partisan hack Nate Silver who pointed out semi-recently that most primary voters don't even make up their mind about who they're voting for until a week or two beforehand.



Nate Silver's job isn't to say "Yes, Trump is definitely winning the nomination/election" or "NO, Trump is absolutely not winning anything." Statistical probabilities are just that, not certainties one way or the other. But his analysis is a little more nuanced and data-driven than what you're saying. I don't know if you actually have a problem interpreting this, though, given your post history in every single Nate Silver thread.



I find it very hard to believe that the average voter, conservative or liberal, even knows who Nate Silver is to vote for a candidate just out of spite.
Click to expand...
What I think is going to happen is that if and when Trump does get the nomination, Nate will simply say "guyz I did give Trump 1% chance of winning so technically I'm saved!" While completely overlooking the factors that make him give Trump that low number.
 
Plinko said:
Nate's problem, though, is similar to what happened to the republicans last election: he's using old data as a base for his predictions.

Remember the "unskewed polling" guy who acted as if the electorate would be identical in 2012 as it was in 2008? Romney et al bought into that. That's what Silver is basically doing. He truly believes that the establishment will once again unite behind a candidate and propel them to the top.

I've been saying for over a year that wouldn't happen this time around because of the conflict within the electorate itself. Republicans are fed up with establishment candidates. Silver has a huge problem with that and can't see why it is happening.
Click to expand...

This is how I look at it, too. The game has changed.
 
RustyNails said:
...so whats Nate even doing then? Here let me create a website and I will write in big bolded letters "Trump's chances to win the GOP nomination are between 1% and 100%".
Click to expand...

Statistics, how do they work?

Newsflash: Nate is not and has never pretended to be a fortune teller.
 
RustyNails said:
What I think is going to happen is that if and when Trump does get the nomination, Nate will simply say "guyz I did give Trump 1% chance of winning so technically I'm saved!" While completely overlooking the factors that make him give Trump that low number.
Click to expand...

Why would you think he wouldn't look at what led to that result?
 
Plinko said:
Nate's problem, though, is similar to what happened to the republicans last election: he's using old data as a base for his predictions.

Remember the "unskewed polling" guy who acted as if the electorate would be identical in 2012 as it was in 2008? Romney et al bought into that. That's what Silver is basically doing. He truly believes that the establishment will once again unite behind a candidate and propel them to the top.

I've been saying for over a year that wouldn't happen this time around because of the conflict within the electorate itself. Republicans are fed up with establishment candidates. Silver has a huge problem with that and can't see why it is happening.
Click to expand...

You have this exactly backwards. The "it's different this time so previous data are wrong!" are doing the unskewed polls thing. 538 has been consistently applying their reasoning from the start, and that reasoning is well justified and explicit even if you disagree. The unskewed polls movement was all about rejecting what was right in front of them because they knew it was the result of some nebulous corrupting factor they never pinned down. Those claiming "things" are different this time in the same nebulous way are doing almost exactly the same thing.
 
When Trump wins the nomination, Nate will just claim, that it was the result of a self-fullfilling prophecy: "Because all of you kept talking how much Trump would win, he got enough attention and free advertisement which in the end led to him winning".

So basically, he will be saying that Trump would not have won had the media and all the pundits not lifted him up from obscurity and gotten blinded by the polls.

Thus Nate will say that if everyone would have just let the process proceed naturally, he would have never won.
 
Blader said:
I find it very hard to believe that the average voter, conservative or liberal, even knows who Nate Silver is to vote for a candidate just out of spite.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that Nate has become part of the very sphere he is trying to dissect/analyze/criticize. He's more than just a statistician now with his near weekly Trump blogs. Heck, here on GAF we've had a number of Nate/Trump threads. He's now part of that Trumposphere he so desperately wants to be impartial and distance himself from.
 
Guevara said:
BF24cWX.png


Basically.
Click to expand...

lolololololololol

but yes.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Why would you think he wouldn't look at what led to that result?
Click to expand...
Because he already is going by the party decides stuff, ie endorsements, pac money, ads etc.

I dont have a problem with Nate. I simply wish he prefaced with words to the effect of conditions of electing a typical GOP nominee has changed. The electorate is not Romney and McCain's electorate anymore. Scouring conservasphere tells us that freepers and brietbart crowd loathes the GOP. Strumpeteers are an extension of this shared frustration. It's a mutated strain of tea party. Disregarding all of that is weird to me.
 
RustyNails said:
Because he already is going by the party decides stuff, ie endorsements, pac money, ads etc.

I dont have a problem with Nate. I simply wish he prefaced with words to the effect of conditions of electing a typical GOP nominee has changed. The electorate is not Romney and McCain's electorate anymore. Scouring conservasphere tells us that freepers and brietbart crowd loathes the GOP. Strumpeteers are an extension of this shared frustration. It's a mutated strain of tea party. Disregarding all of that is weird to me.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is "I wish he prefaced his analysis with my opinion."

Bel Marduk said:
His credibility is on the line here.

If he's wrong, fivethirtyeight will suffer more damage than Gallup did after its final poll in 2012 predicted a Romney victory.
Click to expand...

What has he said will happen and what outcome would make him wrong?
 
Putzweg said:
When Trump wins the nomination, Nate will just claim, that it was the result of a self-fullfilling prophecy: "Because all of you kept talking how much Trump would win, he got enough attention and free advertisement which in the end led to him winning".

So basically, he will be saying that Trump would not have won had the media and all the pundits not lifted him up from obscurity and gotten blinded by the polls.

Thus Nate will say that if everyone would have just let the process proceed naturally, he would have never won.
Click to expand...

What is the percentage chance of this happening? ;)

Seriously, I doubt it. Nate hasn't ever asserted that media attention alone gave somebody the nomination, and he's pointed out how it's collapsed for several people before.

Nate's odds on Trump also involve more than just the polling, he's assuming the party is against Trump (which seems to be correct).
 
RustyNails said:
Because he already is going by the party decides stuff, ie endorsements, pac money, ads etc.

I dont have a problem with Nate. I simply wish he prefaced with words to the effect of conditions of electing a typical GOP nominee has changed. The electorate is not Romney and McCain's electorate anymore. Scouring conservasphere tells us that freepers and brietbart crowd loathes the GOP. Strumpeteers are an extension of this shared frustration. It's a mutated strain of tea party. Disregarding all of that is weird to me.
Click to expand...

1) I think he's shown plenty of evidence of looking at failed predictions and why they happen.

2) We don't know that that party*doesn't* decide this time around (Stormfront is far from mainstream).

3) We don't know that the conditions have changed, or even what conditions go into this. A running theme in 538's posts on this is how little data there is historically.


A lot of the posts in here seem to be based on the certain knowledge that Trump is the nominee.
 
DragonSworne said:
Yep, and Nate is using his background of a statistician to perpetuate this nonsense. Nate isn't looking at data, he's being a pundit and it is decrediting him.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? That IS data. Disregarding them because "this time it's different!!" is what's punditry.
 
people laughing at a statistician who updates his mathematical model as new givens become available

never change gaf
 
entrement said:
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.
Click to expand...

Liberals have turned on Nate Silver for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of his punditry: its because he won't concede that the liberal candidate is automatically going to win right now. It's not actually different from why conservatives hated him in 2012.

For some reason, there's an added element of many liberals arguing that "but this time it's different" (which is basically the opposite of Nate's position) as though Trump is the first blowhard to run his mouth in a presidential election on either side. I actually can't fathom why so many liberals seem invested in Trump's candidacy being for real: is it because they want to believe conservatives are all crazy? Or is simply because they think Trump gives them a better shot? I'd consider the former more likely than the latter, given the fact that it doesn't seem that many people recognize just how hopeless Trump would likely be in the general.
 
KHarvey16 said:
What you're saying is "I wish he prefaced his analysis with my opinion."
Click to expand...

But the thing that you're taking pains to dodge is this: the data collected this year - data measuring the GOP electorate's mood, attitude towards its leaders, etc - has been pretty consistent. You keep brushing this off as some "nebulous" factor, but it's there. You don't get to wish it away or pretend it doesn't exist as a valid point of consideration. Pollsters have been asking the GOP's voters about this all year; this isn't some vague "but.. but.. this year is different" talking point.

Will those attitudes outweigh factors that Nate is considering? I don't know. But to pretend that there isn't a counterpoint worth evaluating? C'mon.
 
HylianTom said:
But the thing that you're taking pains to dodge is this: the data collected this year - data measuring the GOP electorate's mood, attitude towards its leaders, etc - has been pretty consistent. You keep brushing this off as some "nebulous" factor, but it's there. You don't get to wish it away or pretend it doesn't exist as a valid point of consideration. Pollsters have been asking the GOP's voters about this all year; this isn't some vague "but.. but.. this year is different" talking point.

Will those attitudes outweigh factors that Nate is considering? I don't know. But to pretend that there isn't a counterpoint worth evaluating? C'mon.
Click to expand...

You imply, without supporting it, that this is brand new and hasn't happened before.
 
KHarvey16 said:
You imply, without supporting it, that this is brand new and hasn't happened before.
Click to expand...
I don't even imply it - there is actual data supporting such a claim. The attitude that GOP voters have with respect to their party leaders/officials is at record levels of negativity.
 
Angry Grimace said:
Liberals have turned on Nate Silver for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of his punditry: its because he won't concede that the liberal candidate is automatically going to win right now. It's not actually different from why conservatives hated him in 2012.

For some reason, there's an added element of many liberals arguing that "but this time it's different" (which is basically the opposite of Nate's position) as though Trump is the first blowhard to run his mouth in a presidential election on either side.
Click to expand...

For all that Nate has tried downplay and describe what he's doing any why he thinks that way, so many people still seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Nate is doing and what he is actually saying. Even people that agree with him tout the "he predicted every state!" line, when that isn't what he did. What he did do is say, given the information and an understanding of how much weight it holds and what statistical margin of error it has, what is the % chance of each candidate winning each state.

I like to think that liberals have a better understanding of statistical & data-based arguments than conservatives, but this thread makes me seriously doubt that.

Ignatz Mouse said:
Why is recording this negativity and how is it measured?
Click to expand...

It isn't measured. It is just inferred from non-establishment candidates doing well when a majority of likely voters aren't paying attention.
 
HylianTom said:
I don't even imply it - there is actual data supporting such a claim. The attitude that GOP voters have with respect to their party leaders/officials is at record levels of negativity.
Click to expand...

And, even granting that(and I don't think I would), you can show that a) this has not been evaluated at 538 and/or that b) it will play a large enough role that it must be included? I don't imagine the weather factors into 538's model either, but to fault them for that without knowing the answer to those two questions is silly.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Why is recording this negativity and how is it measured?
Click to expand...
I'll give you one example..

Here's an article on the Pew Poll's measurement on GOP voters towards their own leadership:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/16/polls-show-republicans-in-a-restive-mood/

My main point: those of us who say, "yes, but.." to Nate's punditry (which, I see folks are still conflating with "statistical analysis." Charming.) aren't basing this on a hunch or something vague and unsubstantiated.
 
aeolist said:
people laughing at a statistician who updates his mathematical model as new givens become available

never change gaf
Click to expand...

The writing has been on the wall for a long time. Nate's been ignoring it.

Angry Grimace said:
Liberals have turned on Nate Silver for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of his punditry: its because he won't concede that the liberal candidate is automatically going to win right now.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do wit it.
 
HylianTom said:
My main point: those of us who say, "yes, but.." to Nate's punditry (which, I see folks are still conflating with "statistical analysis." Charming.) aren't basing this on a hunch or something vague and unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...

Building a linear regression model based on data to predict poll #s and comparing that to actual poll numbers is "statistical analysis". In what world doesn't that count?
 
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
892
daffyduck replied
Top Bottom