i don't know how anyone was still listening to him anyway, after he completely whiffed on president michele bachmann's winning campaign
Nate Silver on Trump: Trump Boom Or Trump Bubble?
- Thread starter PBY
- Start date
- Status
i don't know how anyone was still listening to him anyway, after he completely whiffed on president michele bachmann's winning campaign
What will you say when that does happen and turmp doesnt get the nom?
To prevent feeling like that, you should read what 538 has been saying all along. It should make things more clear.
i guarantee that if trump somehow gets the nomination 538 will have a long and detailed post about what they got wrong and how it happened
And_Gignac
Member
He keeps embarrassing himself. What a weird sword to die for.
As stated earlier, I have no quibble with Nate's numbers work. It's when he leaves the realm of numbers and goes beyond that where I begin to become skeptical. He even address the topic in past writings, making a clear division between stats and punditry.
Every time someone says this the unintentional irony is almost too much. You don't even know enough to feel silly for saying it.
Lol, principled analysis of good data is not punditry. What you're saying makes no sense.
Doubling/Tripling-down when everything so far is going against you is either ultimate bravery or ultimate foolishness. I'm partial towards the latter.
RustyNails
Member
Isn't 538 basically saying Trump's chances of winning the nomination are exceedingly low, based on past historical trends?
EatinOlives
Member
It's like people are ANGRY that he's not a hyperbolic pundit. Rational analysis of empirical data resulting nonzero-chances of every outcome?? Get the fuck outta here! Eating crow! Backpedaling! Denial!...err, what other dismissive buzzwords can I throw in here??
Exceedingly might be overstating it, but yes.
"WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT!"
teruterubozu
Member
Double- and triple-down. Come on, there's gotta be more.
I keep thinking Iowa will be Trump biggest hurdle, many candidates will not hit the threshold for delegates and they will try to move their voter strategically to stop Trump, same with the candidates that hit the threshold in some of the precincts but have enough voters to pass to other candidate to denies Trump delegates. Trump need to be up by a large margin in Iowa to actually win the caucus.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Trump is an anti-establishment candidate and has been leading the entire way. Carson was the only other guy who got close and he, also, is an anti-establishment candidate.
Ted Cruz mind-bogglingly advertises himself as anti-establishment, and he's the closest now. It's not rocket science at this point. This isn't a flavor of the month thing. Look at establishment candidates like Rubio and Jeb. Terrible numbers. You can't brush that off as irrelevant, which is what Nate is doing.
If Trump doesn't get the nomination? What does it matter what I say? Who cares? I'm voting for Hillary regardless.
cDNA said:
Trump doesn't need Iowa in the least, and people need to stop pretending that Iowa matters any more in today's world. It used to matter before the internet/social media/24-7 news coverage. Santorum won it in 2012. I mean, come on.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
So ignoring everything Nate is actually saying in favor of reaching a "between the lines" conclusion on why Nate is saying what he is saying (without any basis in anything) has nothing to do with him consistently disagreeing with the narrative liberals clearly are pushing?
I find that hard to believe.
And_Gignac
Member
He is not being rational. Like, at all. He keeps downplaying Trump's dominance when he could use his smarts to know better.
He has totally failed to read the narrative of this election and so have his numbers. His numbers failed him.
Lol
I don't even know what people are so angry about from this article specifically.
Of course reading the article helps.
The article is about candidates whose media share was much greater than their polling share, which in historical average terms is typically 1:1. 30% polling share = 30% media share.
Trump on average since July had a 54% media share compared to a 28% polling share. Silver notes this is not the largest gap a candidate has ever had:
He goes into some other historical examples, then drops this megaton:
And follows that up by saying media-dependent candidate is inherently more volatile. He does not say Trump will not win the primary. He says that obstacles for a media-dependent candidate are basically anything that takes media coverage off them (such as the upcoming debates, other candidates leaving the race, and anyone other than them winning the vote in any state).
The final line of the piece is: "And even if his candidacy is a bubble, theres a chance that it wont burst until after hes started racking up delegates and primary wins."
aka yeah, he might win.
Of course reading the article helps.
The article is about candidates whose media share was much greater than their polling share, which in historical average terms is typically 1:1. 30% polling share = 30% media share.
Trump on average since July had a 54% media share compared to a 28% polling share. Silver notes this is not the largest gap a candidate has ever had:
He goes into some other historical examples, then drops this megaton:
And follows that up by saying media-dependent candidate is inherently more volatile. He does not say Trump will not win the primary. He says that obstacles for a media-dependent candidate are basically anything that takes media coverage off them (such as the upcoming debates, other candidates leaving the race, and anyone other than them winning the vote in any state).
The final line of the piece is: "And even if his candidacy is a bubble, theres a chance that it wont burst until after hes started racking up delegates and primary wins."
aka yeah, he might win.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Silver hasn't said anything that should lead a rational person to believe he has some kind of bizarre grudge either for or against Donald Trump; the only rational conclusion is there's an ulterior motive for rejecting what Silver's saying. It seems to be old fashioned cognitive dissonance combined with a healthy dose of Special Snowflakeism, where anything that disrupts the "democrats will easily beat the completely insane-person republicans" is wrong, and to the extent data might disagree with that conclusion, "this time it's different."
Thus, "Nate is wrong and biased," and if he points out historical data, "Trump is different from all the other blowhard candidates who dominated the news cycle prior to any votes being cast; ergo, Nate is still wrong."
Thus, "Nate is wrong and biased," and if he points out historical data, "Trump is different from all the other blowhard candidates who dominated the news cycle prior to any votes being cast; ergo, Nate is still wrong."
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'm not calling what he's doing statistical analysis, and I have no issue with other people putting forth thier own opinions, it's this weird strong anti-Nate thing as well as ascribing feelings and opinions to him.
Like I said above, Nate is filling time until the real show starts. His site has made the case that that *can't* predict the primary.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's not like this would be the first time Nate's blown a political prediction. Even when everyone was hobnobbing him in 2012 he still gave Heidi Heitkamp a 10% chance of winning and Jon Tester a 33% chance even though all available public polling had both of them in the lead, due to his model overwhelmingly favoring the fundamentals.
I don't think it's his statistical write-ups that bother me but his pathetic attempts at trolling Trump on Twitter and other outlets which have all backfired ("lololol every debate has sunk Trump" *Trump is now at highest he's been*). It's not his measured skepticism that will make him eat crow, it's his lame attitude on social media.
I don't think it's his statistical write-ups that bother me but his pathetic attempts at trolling Trump on Twitter and other outlets which have all backfired ("lololol every debate has sunk Trump" *Trump is now at highest he's been*). It's not his measured skepticism that will make him eat crow, it's his lame attitude on social media.
Citation needed.
To Far Away Times
Member
Yup. Trump is giving the GOP base exactly what they want.
What the majority of the GOP base wants will damage the party, and party leaders can see that, but they made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
It is interesting to see how so many are quick to shit on him. And theres a lot in this thread. It is straight up embarrassing. We should champion critical thinkers, otherwise we get more "trump".
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I have zero desire for Trump to win (even though I picked him in the PoliGAF contest). Zero. I think he'd be a disaster.
I also have been following Nate Silver for a long time. This has nothing to do with an ulterior motive on my part. Silver genuinely is flummoxed by what is happening and I don't think he has any idea why.
It's hilarious to me that when a conclusion based on data analysis, conducted in the open for us all to see, conflicts with your gut feeling, he's "flummoxed."
You realize that Trump hasn't actually won yet, right? You realize that even if Trump wins, the analysis may still very well be correct, right?
This is not new, though. Congressional Republicans were widely hated by GOP voters in the run up to the 2014 mid-terms, and yet, even fewer anti-establishment candidates were elected. It didn't stop Romney from clinching the nom in 2012 either.
That's not the expression, though I'm sure there's someone out there willing to die for the sake of their sword.
Nate has most recently pegged it at 20 percent or under. Exceedingly low is in the eye of the beholder.
Cruz did not suddenly start branding himself as anti-establishment, and he's polling strong in Iowa because he's the kind of religious social conservative that Iowa primary voters get behind. It's not like if Jeb or Kasich were to label themselves as anti-establishment, their campaigns would suddenly take off. Conversely, Carson and especially Fiorina -- both of whom have branded themselves as anti-establishment from the start -- are dropping off in the polls.
It would be really helpful for people who haven't been following all of these Nate Silver discussions on Trump if one of you guys who have this opinion had a reference or link showing Nate Silver being frustrated and/or saying something where his analysis doesn't match up to what's really happening. Because for the past couple of threads that I've seen, posters just post these "Nate Silver is getting more and more angry at Trump/Nate can't figure Trump out" type posts and when just looking at the OP, they don't make any sense.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is why people consider Nate to be "doubling" and "tripling down". Him using historical references seems like he's willfully ignoring what's been going on this cycle because history has to repeat itself. Most everyone had Bush as their man at the start.
Yep. People generally don't like to admit that the reason liberals have turned on Silver is that Silver thinks there's a really good chance the Republican nominee (assuming Non Trump, since he could run independent and blow up the Republican chance completely) will win the election.
You used the words "Special Snowflakeism". I like you.
Silver's sort of flummoxed by the fact that the anti-establishment hate has lasted as long as it has - but he's also flummoxed by the fact of why anyone gives a shit about polls this far out that have historically had zippo predictive power. Basically, Silver's response to the "things are different this time, really!" crowd is "ok, prove it at the ballots." He's also correctly pointing out the circle that is helping Trump (media coverage increases poll numbers, which increases media coverage). The problem is that the upward cycle can immediately turn into a downward cycle (see Bush, Jeb) if anything goes wrong.
Winning Florida is more than just a symbolic prize, too. It's a winner take all state. All 99 delegates. And with much less WTA states this year than in previous primaries, they're pretty damn valuable. So if Trump wins Florida by 20% like the polls say he is right now, or 1%, either way he's at a bigger advantage.
I just haaaate the meme that Rubio will be the nominee because..... something? The guy who's down in the polls, with the donors, and ground game. The candidate who doesn't give a damn enough to even try to meet with potential voters in New Hampshire and Iowa, whereas Trump, Cruz, Christie, Bush are all doing overtime to connect to voters. I dunno. He's The Establishment Candidate. So I guess that's enough for some people to overlook reality and say he'll win.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I don't think this is it. I think Clinton has the general in the bag (barring major surprises) against Trump, Jeb!, Cruz, or any of the other GOP candidates. I think some people are just looking at the persistence and surge of Trump in the face of some of the wildest things said in a long time by someone running for office, and are not comfortable with the very low chances of him winning the primary that Nate is giving.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I agree with Silver that Trump is unlikely to be the nominee, but I really hate the mentality that if you dare to criticize Silver, his website, or any of his proprietary models, then you're "disagreeing with the math." Regression is not some magical tool that can instantly turn data into rock-solid conclusions. Underlying any statistical model is a series of assumptions that can be essentially impossible to independently verify. And the truth is that Silver's models haven't performed all that impressively in the past. Silver would be the first to admit that his feat of "calling" nearly every state correctly in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections was overrated. There aren't that many competitive states in a given election, so absent some systematic polling error, calling states just isn't that hard. Look at an election where a good model might really add some value over just looking at the polls and his models just don't look like anything special.
I think one big issue is that a lot of Silver's early criticism came from bloviating pundits (Politico), partisan hacks with no incentive to be objective (Rove), and just plain idiots (the Unskewed Polls guy). It's hard to be critical of him without getting lumped in with those people.
I don't want to give the wrong impression here, I actually do like a fair bit of Silver's work. If nothing else, it's good to get people to understand how to think probabilistically. I just wish people would take a more balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of his work.
I think one big issue is that a lot of Silver's early criticism came from bloviating pundits (Politico), partisan hacks with no incentive to be objective (Rove), and just plain idiots (the Unskewed Polls guy). It's hard to be critical of him without getting lumped in with those people.
I don't want to give the wrong impression here, I actually do like a fair bit of Silver's work. If nothing else, it's good to get people to understand how to think probabilistically. I just wish people would take a more balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of his work.
zero shift
Banned
Nate more or less said that Trump will become irrelevant after Thanksgiving at most because that is when more people start paying attention to politics. Now that it as been proven not to be true he is backtracking and saying he may when due to the media circus which is the main point people have been attributing that he could win all the way back since the summer.
What "narrative" are liberals pushing. Again who is this mysterious liberal candidate that liberals want to win that Nate is saying has no chance of winning? I sure hope you aren't talking about Bernie.
Where did he more or less say that?
Please quote him.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
And you do realize I already addressed this, right?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
No, that's not what he said. He said he expected a drop in Trump's numbers. But it's only Gate #2 of the 6 Nate was taking about.
Stage #3 is Iowa/New Hampshire.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Check the PoliGAF thread over the past few months. They've all been posted. I'm not finding the quotes/tweets for you.
zero shift
Banned
Exactly and they aren't dropping, they are raising.
The more informed voters are here and Trump is polling at record numbers.
This. Seems like he has mentally entrenched himself unable to see things from other point of views
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Which he acknowledges is possible in the FOUR FOLLOWING SCENARIOS.
He didn't say he'd be irrelevant. He said he might be. He said it was essentially 50/50, which is hardly scientific, but a far cry from what you say he said.
Nate's 2% chance was based on passing 6 hurdles. Trump has passed 1.5 of them. certainly that makes Trump's odds go up, and Nate is acknowledging that. Somehow, that's backpedalling.
Well, that's debatable...
Nate's prediction also failed to take into account a pair of significant terrorist attacks -- happening around just that time -- that kept Trump firmly at the top of the news cycle thanks to his sweeping anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies. Is that really a failure of his statistical analysis or more of an October (err, November) Surprise that always always always gets trotted out in the disclaimers of these things ("barring a terror attack or economic attack, [blank] is the likely winner...")?
You don't need to quote anything/I wasn't asking you specifically to find links or tweets. But you and others posting "Nate Silver is so frustrated" type posts should understand how your argument looks when you don't supply any non PoliGAF community references in topics where the OPs don't contain anything in regards to what you're describing about Nate Silver.
No, quote him saying what you're claiming he said. What you selected here is it that.
- Status