75
Nate Silver issues "good news" for Harris on electoral college chances
(www.newsweek.com)
So the model image you posted above there says it's more likely that Trump wins the election than it is flipping two heads in a row while flipping a coin. This is saying it's less likely for Trump to win than Hillary to win, but something that could fairly easily happen still. These aren't poll numbers, where 70-30 would be a massive blow out. This is a 30% chance of winning for Trump, closer to a coin flip than a sure thing.
A lot of other models were saying something ridiculous like Clinton had 95% chance to win or something. Nate Silver's model seems better than others based on this, if anything.
A lot of other models were saying something ridiculous like Clinton had 95% chance to win or something. Nate Silver’s model seems better than others based on this, if anything.
The constant attacks on how 538's model performed in 2016 says more about statistics literacy than it does about the model.
There is plenty to criticize Nate Silver for. Take your pick. Personally, the political nihilism that's increasingly flirted with "anti-woke" sentiment is good enough for me. Some people might prefer taking issue with the degenerate gambling.
But his models, historically, have performed relatively well if you understand that they're models and not absolute predictors.
People forget that Clinton lost because of Comey's October revelation that the FBI was reopening the investigation into her emails.
I was assured for a solid 7 years that it was solely the fault of everyone who was even the slightest bit disappointed about the primaries.
I agree with your take on the old 538 model, but if you read Nate’s new substack it become pretty clear that he’s been ‘captured’. Almost all of his post seem to fairly anti-Harris in their biases and it feels like all of his writings are really meant for one person, that person being the owner of Polymarket who he has a very large consulting contract. What these biases are doing to the Model I don’t know but the new model at 538 which was built from the ground up by other statisticians consistently trends about 10-20% higher odds for Harris taking the election.
Oh, I don't disagree at all.
Like I said, Nate's definitely increasingly treaded into questionable territory in the past few years and I don't have a sense for whether it's impacted the model since I've honestly not been paying close attention to the horse race this cycle.
I was mostly pointing out that while the dude has almost always been a bad take generator, the 2016 model very arguably outperformed its contemporaries despite the popular view that they blew it. I wouldn't be shocked if Nate's sponsors and general ideological drift has impacted the model this cycle (*especially given Peter Thiel's involvement), but I don't have a strong sense for whether that's the case either. I also wouldn't be particularly surprised if he sufficiently separated the stats from the dumb ideas to produce a reasonable model either. I just don't have enough info to have formed an opinion there.
Looking at the historical election wins where president with lower popular vote won, trump clearly is outlier and either had outrageous luck (I doubt it) or help to push things just enough to get enough EC votes.
Of course this help, that he got in 2016 he still is getting right now so we should still assume odds will be in his favor and make won't get suspended and vote (the more people vote, the harder is to artificially affect the results).
Is this from FiveThirtyEight or Nate Silver?
I think Silver. Nate left FiveThirtyEight and now the site doesn't even publish any kind of predictive model.
When did Nate Leave 538? Screenshot was from before the 2016 election.
Nate left 538 about a year ago. He now publishes his own SubStack for subscription and does a lot of consulting, notably including a hefty contract with Peter Theil the well know billionaire and right wing power broker who pushed JD Vance to be the Vice Presidential candidate for Trump
I think it's more than ABC News fired Nate and most people involved with FiveThirtyEight. Happened awhile ago, at least a year or two ago.
I looked it up. Looks like he were with 538 from 2008-2023.
So to answer your original question, “It’s from 538 while Nate was still there” but I couldn’t say how directly involved he was with the models that backed this image from 2016. My assumption is that he would have been fairly deeply involved in the models though.
He founded 538, and was the primary person behind the models while he was there. Got passed around between the New York Times and ESPN and ABC.
He took the model with him when he left.
As another poster mentions, there is plenty to criticize him over. I'm not even sure about the model anymore, but it's not totally out of line from other models, either.
I keep trying to reframe it to people that I am happy to spend an extra $2 on a tank of gas if it means not having a convicted rapist who sows division and hate as a role model for my 12 year old niece.
And then add in that I’m an international buyer and can confirm EVERYONE globally is paying more since COVID. And tariffs ARE passed on to the consumer.
I’ve slowed down my own postings and now responding to my conservative friends political posts, hoping it gets to more of those people.
Sorry to focus on this point but gas is subject to a fairly fluid global market. I've been driving a car since Clinton and have never noticed Republicans being better for gas prices or the price of anything, if anything it's the opposite.
I thought the President wasnt able to do anything about gas prices?
The President can do a lot of macro things that affect oil supply, like exercising some control over leases in public land, choosing to regulate or deregulate fracking, or invading a foreign country to obtain more oil.
In a more micro scale the President has fairly direct control over the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and can decide when to release and when to replenish.
You can't just give them the idea that gas will cost $2 more. It won't.
Why are we looking to a Newsweek article about Nate's blog, instead of the blog post directly?
Last update: 9:30 a.m., Friday, September 20. The theme of the week remains mostly strong state polls for Kamala Harris, like this batch from Morning Consult, which helped her even though Morning Consult has consistently shown some of her better numbers.
Indeed, today marks the 3rd time so far in the election that the streams have crossed in the forecast — Harris is technically the favorite in the model for the first time since Aug. 28 — but the race is a toss-up and that will happen a lot when the forecast is so close to 50/50.
Note that these margins are still razor thin. Voter turnout (and related factors) will be absolutely critical to the final results.
Oh does he? Does he “issue ‘good news’” then? Oh.
Can he also bite my shiny metal ass?
So you'd like him to go on a Bender?
I have full confidence she'll win the votes necessary. I have less confidence in GOP and MAGA operatives not pulling out all the stops to ensure Trump wins on a technicality. They WILL attempt a steal!
Nate Silver is still trying to figure out the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.
Time to shut the orange turd out!
Suddenly everyone loves Nate Silverman again? Or is it confirmation bias kicking in?
why did they hate him?
LOL you love to see it
There are some people still mad at him in this comment section though, to be fair
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.newsweek.com/nate-silver-issues-good-news-electoral-college-donald-trump-election-1956228
This bot shouldn't be able to call itself a "fact checker" when it doesn't check any facts from the articles it replies to. It just spams its own bias opinion about what bias the website has in general.
You are a spam bot. Lemmy would be better off without you.
Just so you know, Lemmy has an option in every person's account to hide posts and comments from bot accounts ("bot" in this context meaning accounts that have voluntarily tagged themselves as bots, which is the case for the one you replied to.)
That doesn't help the stability of the platform.
It's also pretty easy to just block the account.
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
75 points (87.9% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1159 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS