Nate Silver: "Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination."

[Cheese Sandwich]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

At FiveThirtyEight, however, we’re fairly agnostic about what will happen to Trump’s polling in the near term. It’s possible that he’s already peaked — or that he’ll hold his support all the way through Iowa and New Hampshire, possibly even winning one or two early states, as similar candidates like Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich have in the past.4 Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination. It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so.

-Nate Silver Aug 11, 2015

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/

[TimPlo]

1. Wait was he not other day

Saying how people can't really tell by polls? That we all should take a step back and not worry about them. For someone who is suppose to be some statistical prodigy her sure seems to be unsure from on day to the next.

[randome]

4. You may not be seeing the larger picture.

A single poll or two can't be taken as a mirror to the future. But polling over time points to trends and probabilities. It's a numbers game, but unlike a 'simple' equation, the information it reveals is one of statistical probabilities over time.

No one ever claimed that polling predicts the future in a given instance.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[longship]

11. Do you mean other than Nate Silver?

Who makes bank by being able to predict future outcomes based on... (wait for it) The Polls.

But when he's shown to be absolutely wrong, it's not his fault, it's that polls tell you nothing. So he says when he's proven to be demonstrably wrong.

Watch this and learn:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017369595

[randome]

13. Every pollster works by the same general rules. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong.

You act like Nate Silver is personally standing in the way of The New Society. He is just an aggregater of polls. More accurate than most but not infallible. Big deal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

14. It's not just about Nate, it's about the fact that people post his predictions and say 'It's

the Math' as if Nate is always correct. Then when he's wrong they say some hyperbolic crap like you did and then act as if Nate is not regularly presented as a Talisman of Prognostication.

[longship]

17. Is that his excuse for saying he ignored the polls on Trump?

Nope! He said -- more or less -- that his insider Spidey-Sense told him that the polls were bullshit and that Trump could never gain the nomination.

The same deal with Bernie vs Hillary. He has ignored that polling, too, that Bernie is more electable than Hillary in the GE in just about all polling. But then there's his Spidey-Sense... Or, maybe his bias. As Cenk and The Young Turks accurately describe.

If one wonders why so many Democrats are pissed off, and why GD.P has turned into a toxic waste dump, this is why.

[roguevalley]

18. didn't he predict that HRC would win Indiana by 90+ percent?

[longship]

22. Cherry picked results do not count.

It is the big picture which does count. Nate has been massively wrong this cycle no matter how many individual predictions you cherry pick to deny that fact.

[anigbrowl]

23. I don't think he's ever claimed to be infallible

Nobody has a 100% success rate. Nate Silver does seem to have a consistently better success rate than his peers even though he is wrong some of the time.

[longship]

30. No. He just maintained that Trump had no chance in spite of all the fucking polls...

...which said, loudly, otherwise. His answer? Polls are unreliable at this point, in spite of the fact that they were correct. And in spite his job, and his reputation (now hopefully in tatters), that he can accurately read the tea leaves in the polls.

Hint: That isn't math. That could credibly be called bias. One then wonders about the rest of his crystal ball pronouncements, many of which were a bit off the mark. (Hey Nate! What about Michigan? An exemplar.)

Cenk and the Young Turks ask some compelling questions here.

[bettyellen]

20. he said- very clearly- it is way too early to look at polls for the GE. He has also said the same

about states where there is too little polling. You're welcome.

[global1]

2. Reminds Me Of That TV Commercial - I Will Never Get Married; We Will Never Have Kids; We'll Never...

move to the suburbs; etc.

The same thing with Trump. He's not a serious candidate; he'll never win a primary; he'll never make it to April; he'll never be the Repug nominee.

Now they're saying he'll never be president.

Why should we believe them? They've been wrong all along.

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. He's wrong a lot as far as I can tell.

[dana_b]

16. a LOT

seems like he is wrong more than he is right. Why does anyone take him seriously?

[leftynyc]

19. Really?

Who else called every single state in 2012? Who else got 33 out of 34 senate races correct (only one he missed was decided by less than 1%). THAT'S why he's take seriously. Put up someone with that track record and I'm sure everyone will take a look. It's certainly not his fault you don't like what he sees.

[longship]

32. And then there's 2015-16...

"Trump will never get the nomination!" (Or something like that)

Hillary has Michigan in the bag! Oopsie! Wrong again, Nate.

But now it's that the polls are wrong... In spite of the fact that the Trump polls were all basically correct.

That is the issue.

[leftynyc]

33. No - the issue is that

you don't like what he's saying so you're ignoring his history in GENERAL ELECTIONS. That's entirely your problem. I couldn't possibly care less.

[longship]

34. The only history I am interested in is his recent history, which is not too good.

In his business, coasting on past history is not good enough. One has to keep up appearances, so to speak. In his case that means making accurate predictions, which he has sadly not done.

If he thought that the polling was bunk, why in the fuck didn't he state that there was not enough accurate information to make a prediction? That is what a scientist would do, what Nate would have done before he gained fame and fortune in 2008 and 2012. But nope! He plunged into the deep end of the pool and found out that he has forgotten how to swim.

[anigbrowl]

24. How scientific of you

Of course if you actually cared about whether he was wrong or right you'd look a the numbers but that's too much work for you.

[dana_b]

25. wow - what a nasty piece of work you are

just like your Queen.

[merrily]

26. I love that commercial! Life is what happens while you are making other plans.

Don't know who said that first, but it's so true.

[BillZBubb]

5. Nate Silver jumped the shark.

He decided to be Nostradamus instead of a guy who simply and factually followed the numbers. He's been wrong a lot this election cycle. His bias is in everything he says.

[merrily]

27. He decided to be a shill rather than an objective analyzer of polls.

[CoffeeCat]

6. Nate Silver 2016 is not Nate Silver 2008

Nate Silver became famous for his accurate predictions--which were based on complex analytics and very thorough analysis.

Nate doesn't seem to be engaging in the intricate mathematics for which he became famous. Much of what Silver does is pretty ho hum. He looks at polling that others do, weights it and averages the data to come up with a prediction.

Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong. However, people still assume he's the numbers sage that he was in 2008.

He's not. Furthermore, 538 was purchased by ABC. Nate primarily works in the sports world, but does politics when these Primary and Presidential contests heat up. But he's no longer using the same magic math that launched his celebrity career.

He clearly schleps for Clinton now, and it's clear that he sold out--BEING OWNED BY ABC now. It's sad. It's like watching Hemmingway selling out to Harlequin and writing romance novels.

[leftynyc]

21. How about Nate 2012

who called every single state? Aren't you getting tired of calling everyone who supports Hillary bought and sold by someone. It looks so pathetically desperate.

[longship]

35. 2012 is irrelevant to 2016, and you know damned well.

And we are not discussing the Nate Silver of 2012 but about the Nate Silver of 2015-16!
And you know that damned well, too.

So please stop. Just stop.

[leftynyc]

36. IT'S THE SAME MAN

You all sound like the unskewed polls guy in 2012. Carry on with your delusions that he's a bought and paid for hack.

[longship]

38. Nope. It's about accuracy.

I never said that he was bought and paid for. That I even implied such a thing is your delusion. My point is that he has simply fallen off his perch. He has been monumentally wrong this past year for whatever reason. Please stop trying to type your words into my keyboard.

This is about Nate Silver's reputation for accuracy being close to in tatters. On his Trump predictions alone that is very worrisome, especially given his reputation. He might have influence now. But if he's really wrong, that might be a very bad thing if Democrats took him seriously without a modicum of oversight and, dare I suggest, peer review.

That is the important issue here, not whether a person supports Hillary or Bernie. If we pay attention to Nate and he's no longer reliable -- for whatever reason -- that would be bad for any candidate.

My best to you.

[leftynyc]

39. Believe what you wish

I will still be looking for his input in the 2016 general. If he blows that, then I'll stop. But blowing one primary (and it was only one- MI) when it was an open primary - notoriously hard to call - makes me yawn. I've assuming since last Halloween that donnie would be the nominee. Not because he's so great - I just looked at the other gop candidates and didn't see anyone beating him. That doesn't make me an oracle.

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. But... but... MATH!!!!

Who will care about the math???

[brooklynite]

8. Nate Silver makes predictions based on the data at the time...

...and he goes back to analyze what went wrong when his projections are inaccurate. All in all, his track record this year has been pretty good.

[longship]

12. Rubbish, all the polls were telling him about Trump's popularity.

He just ignored them. Now the guy who makes bank by analyzing polls is saying that he got it wrong because polls are unreliable. That's some real bullshit, especially since -- for months -- all the polls were saying that Trump was popular. And he fucking ignored them all!

Good work, Nate!

[JonLeibowitz]

28. Yes but his error is in overreaching given the data available at the time

That is, the confidence intervals on predictions very far out is so large as to be close to useless, but you wouldn't know that from his predictions (even if that is the correct expectation).


Example: Sanders could win 1 or maybe 2 states and lose everything else.

[GreatGazoo]

9. Nate Silver would be welcome at any casino in the world,

any poker game, any NFL betting pool.

If he was betting on his own prediction instead of getting paid to make them he would be broke a thousand times over.

Michigan alone:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/

[BootinUp]

10. The Four Things I Learned From The Donald Trump Primary - Harry Enten, 538

(Good article for those interested in polling and politics.)

There are a lot of mea culpas floating around from people who thought it would snow in July — in Miami — before Donald Trump became the Republican nominee for president. I, to take one example, was wrong on Trump. (Although, strictly speaking, I never mentioned snow in Miami; no, I said “Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.”) I wrote a pre-emptive mea culpa back in December, when it was already clear that my initial skepticism of Trump was overconfident. But anytime something so unexpected happens, it’s worth stepping back and thinking about what we should learn. Here are four initial thoughts:
1. Don’t rule out the ahistorical when there’s little history.

My skepticism of Trump boiled down to this: No party had ever nominated someone like him. In the modern era, parties have tended to nominate ideologically reliable candidates who are also electable — for Republicans, electable conservatives. Trump seemed neither electable nor all that conservative.

Indeed, Trump’s résumé didn’t resemble those of recent nominees of either party. Since nominees began to be selected mostly by caucuses and primaries in 1972, no major-party candidate without elected office experience had won. Not since Wendell Willkie in 1940 has a party nominated a candidate who wasn’t either a politician or a war hero.

Continued...

[apnu]

15. Link to the "emphatic prediction" is here.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/

[MineralMan]

29. He apparently overestimated the intelligence of Republicans.

Many people make that mistake, it seems. So, now, we have Donald Trump. That's not Nate Silver's fault. Blame accrues to the idiotic voters who make him the GOP nominee.

Back in 2015, who could have predicted this outcome?

But, now we definitely know that enough Republican voters are morons to have nominated The Donald.

[longship]

37. Uhhhm! Cenk Uygur?

Who has been pleading with people to take Trump seriously.

Meanwhile Nate Silver's explanation of why he got Trump so wrong is because the polls were unreliable, when the fucking polls were saying just that... Trump is popular!

So how does a guy whose reputation is the ability to make sense of political polls and make accurate predictions get away with making such a blinkered irrational explanation? His reputation deserves to be in tatters.

That, no matter who one supports.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Well, we're fucked--Trump will win then

Because Silver is the genius that said Trump would burn out right away.

Oh, wait, that's right, Silver is a genius when he says what we want and then if he is wrong it's not his fault but the fault of the polls.