Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Nate silver is rage tweeting right now because people are calling [View all]andym
(6,048 posts)12. His arguments for his models having higher uncertainty do seem plausible
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/
Here are his assumptions:
Assumption No. 1: The high number of undecided and third-party voters indicates greater uncertainty.
Assumption No. 2: The FiveThirtyEight model is calibrated based on general elections since 1972.
Assumption No. 3: The FiveThirtyEight model uses a t-distribution with fat tails, which gives a greater likelihood of rare events.
Assumption No. 4: State outcomes are highly correlated with one another, so polling errors in one state are likely to be replicated in other, similar states.
He uses polling data going back to 1972-- not sure that is a great idea, since the voting population has changed so much. But he claims that is useful.
Linking similar states is useful, but tricky on how states are grouped.
The good news from all of this is that Hillary is likely going to win, but it could be close, so GOTV and we CAN make a difference.
Here are his assumptions:
Assumption No. 1: The high number of undecided and third-party voters indicates greater uncertainty.
Assumption No. 2: The FiveThirtyEight model is calibrated based on general elections since 1972.
Assumption No. 3: The FiveThirtyEight model uses a t-distribution with fat tails, which gives a greater likelihood of rare events.
Assumption No. 4: State outcomes are highly correlated with one another, so polling errors in one state are likely to be replicated in other, similar states.
He uses polling data going back to 1972-- not sure that is a great idea, since the voting population has changed so much. But he claims that is useful.
Linking similar states is useful, but tricky on how states are grouped.
The good news from all of this is that Hillary is likely going to win, but it could be close, so GOTV and we CAN make a difference.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So now he is dropping F-bombs on Twitter. Must be taking advice from Trumpenstein.
RBInMaine
Nov 2016
#3
Well if you read Ryan Grim's original article, it does bring across some very good points
MyNameIsKhan
Nov 2016
#8
His defensiveness maybe because his model never anticipated what is happening:
BlueStreak
Nov 2016
#19
I would get off his case he may be right nobody knows until the actual votes are counted.
doc03
Nov 2016
#11
Well, that's the thing. Nate's been right and has come to think his rightness means....
Moonwalk
Nov 2016
#35
And, he WAS completely wrong about Trump in the primaries, so his skin is thin now.
manicraven
Nov 2016
#53
You can't base anything on previous elections. That is why he will likely be seen as full of it.
duffyduff
Nov 2016
#22
I think it is reflective of the general jitteriness that any American with a firing synapse has to
hlthe2b
Nov 2016
#21
His prediction numbers have actually helped democrats panic enough to get out
bushisanidiot
Nov 2016
#25
Far too many people lose it when they read or hear anything that doesn't conform to their politics
tymorial
Nov 2016
#37
He's getting grief because his results vastly differ from 4 other highly regarded pollsters.
AgadorSparticus
Nov 2016
#52