Professor Who Predicted Last Five Elections Says Trump Has 87% Chance of Winning

[smilesammich 10,727]

Yeah I am in a Fox news bubble because I posted a clip of a professor being interviewed by Fox news who has also been interviewed by many other media outlets. Maybe if I had posted a clip of him on CNN I would be accused of living in a CNN bubble.

wait. hold up. he was interviewed by "many other media outlets" and you hand selected the fox news interview to post on cehst to be representative of your personal bias bubble? sad.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Another self proclaimed "Middle Of The Road Guy" who posts nothing but right wing views? We already got one of those, you might want to find a new shtick.

Hi NB!

That shtick is copyrighted. I don't like interlopers, feed him to the lions.

I am the one the only true middle of the road guy.

Hi back at ya friend

oh my god stop being so biased, you can't take someone's words and spin them into opposite words that someone is currently saying!

Not only can they , it is the norm here from both ditches. Welcome to the alternate universe

[smilesammich 10,727]

Not only can they , it is the norm here from both ditches. Welcome to the alternate universe

i'm sorry nb, but i'm currently refusing conversation with anyone who has espoused a personal opinion within the past 6 months. i can't have all this bias interfering with my straight and narrow mindfulness...i'm trying to chose a prez. eeneee meanie minie mooooooe catch a russian by his toe...

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

i'm sorry nb, but i'm currently refusing conversation with anyone who has espoused a personal opinion within the past 6 months. i can't have all this bias interfering with my straight and narrow mindfulness...i'm trying to chose a prez. eeneee meanie minie mooooooe catch a russian by his toe...

Well we cool cause I am above the fray cause anyone who can get on here day after day and defend either one of those two deplorables is living in an altered state of being Edited October 24, 2016 by Nature Boy Flair

[B_J 2,752]

Don't know if anybody answered yet but Nate Silver is a number guy. I think his background is actually Economics. Of course, he doesn't have an incredibly long history of making predictions because he's not that old. But what he has done is be very accurate in the last few elections by his analysis of the polling data.

He's also incredibly unbiased; to the point where his writing is very dry and boring. He totally focuses on the numbers.

ETA: Rob beat me to it in explaining who Nate is.

Edited October 24, 2016 by B_J

[yuna628 9,676]

Donald, is that you?

John Miller, surely?

This Nate Silver guy is not a pollster but a statistician. Baseball, elections, new trends in soda...its all the same to him as he is a numbers guy. In the case of elections he rates the relative 'accuracy' of polls and compiles those into am aggregate that , hypothetically, produces a superior prediction of what will happen next.

A good primer on Nate and the 538 site

http://nymag.com/news/features/51170/index1.html

He also has solid math skills and algorithms to boot (hubby is emphatically nodding behind me while rattling off equations I can barely understand)!

[Dashinka 24,492]

This Nate Silver guy is not a pollster but a statistician. Baseball, elections, new trends in soda...its all the same to him as he is a numbers guy. In the case of elections he rates the relative 'accuracy' of polls and compiles those into am aggregate that , hypothetically, produces a superior prediction of what will happen next.

A good primer on Nate and the 538 site

http://nymag.com/news/features/51170/index1.html

Didn't Nate Silver with his statistics predict Trump would never win the GOP nomination? In the article below it seems he was acting more as a political analyst then as a numbers based statistician.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-wont-win-2015-9

[Rob L 3,811]

wait. hold up. he was interviewed by "many other media outlets" and you hand selected the fox news interview to post on cehst to be representative of your personal bias bubble? sad.

Drudge

Breitbart

Investors Daily

Alex Jones

[Rob L 3,811]

Didn't Nate Silver with his statistics predict Trump would never win the GOP nomination? In the article below it seems he was acting more as a political analyst then as a numbers based statistician.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-wont-win-2015-9

Yup and he wrote a good article on where he went wrong. That being said he called all of the states in the 2012 and in 2008 only missed Indiana which went to Obama by 1 %

His track record is short...but sweet.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Yup and he wrote a good article on where he went wrong. That being said he called all of the states in the 2012 and in 2008 only missed Indiana which went to Obama by 1 %

His track record is short...but sweet.

+1

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

[Rob L 3,811]

+1

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

your lack of modesty with throwing around +1s is only exceeded by Jacques

[SunflowerSweet 1,321]

Drudge

Breitbart

Investors Daily

Alex Jones

Those are some true patriotic, red-blooded American new sources alright. All checks out here.

Edited October 24, 2016 by MorganandMichael

[OriZ 3,157]

[Dashinka 24,492]

Yup and he wrote a good article on where he went wrong. That being said he called all of the states in the 2012 and in 2008 only missed Indiana which went to Obama by 1 %

His track record is short...but sweet.

So he is better than the Halloween Mask poll which has been accurate and correct since 1996?

http://www.ajc.com/news/national/can-halloween-mask-sales-predict-the-winner-the-presidential-election/EdWWgydkKWMVXW1t3KCFpN/

The point is that some polls say one thing and others say something else. People will gravitate to the ones that show their candidate winning saying they are the best and tout the others as hanky, or wonky, or not accurate. There is only one poll that matters, so we shall see in two weeks what happens. Then we will see an analysis of all these polls and which ones were accurate and which ones weren't and in four years we will have the discussion all over again.

[JayJayH 546]

The only time this guy was wrong was the 2000 election when he said Al Gore would win but he was correct about the popular vote.

The problem is that he's basing his predictions on historical precedence, but Trump is unlike any other candidate in electoral history.

Generic models work great for generic candidates and generic elections. So if Hillary was running against a generic Republican like Romney, McCain, Ryan, Rubio, Kasich, Jeb! - Maybe even Ted Cruz, it would probably be fairly accurate.

It's like drinking a bottle of wine and predicting with 87% certainty that you'll have a headache the next day. Because that happened 10 out of the last 12 times.

But what happens when the "bottle of wine" is some liquid in a plastic jug that some homeless guy told you was merlot? Does the same generic model apply?