Nate Silver says Trump would be favorite if election were held today

[superbeets]

Who would win the presidency today?

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton
87.1%


Donald Trump
12.8%

[FONT=&quot]July 20, 2015: Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Silver finally weighed in with this article, where he described Trump as a “troll” candidate, who was thriving simply by virtue of the tremendous attention he could receive by insulting everybody and not playing by the rules. Trolling, he suggested, had its political limits and would almost certainly deny Trump the nomination.[/FONT]

“Trump has taken trolling to the next level by being willing to offend members of his own party. Ordinarily, this would be a counterproductive strategy. In a 16-candidate field, however, you can be in first place with 15 or 20 percent of the vote — even if the other 80 or 85 percent of voters hate your guts.
“In the long run — as our experience with past trolls shows — Trump’s support will probably fade. Or at least, given his high unfavorable ratings, it will plateau, and other candidates will surpass him as the rest of the field consolidates.”
​

[FONT=&quot]
.[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

Back under double digits chance for the pathetic loser in the now cast)

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton
90.5%

Donald Trump9.5%​

[FONT=&quot]Aug. 6, 2015: Donald Trump’s Six Stages of Doom[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This article likened Trump’s candidacy to a variety of other insurgent Republican campaigns in the past 20 years, from Pat Buchanan in 1996 to Herman Cain in 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The lesson … is that Trump’s campaign will fail by one means or another. Like Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich, Buchanan, Huckabee and Forbes came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination,” Silver wrote. He pegged Trump’s odds of winning the nomination at 2 percent, and laid out the so-called “six stages of doom” for his campaign.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Trump would eventually be undone, Silver said, by the many roadblocks in his way. He could disappoint in Iowa or New Hampshire, hit a ceiling as the field shrank, botch delegate accumulation in caucus states, or encounter a concerted GOP effort to sabotage him at the convention. Ultimately, all of these factors influenced the race… and none of them were enough to halt the Trump train.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
.[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

Who would win the presidency today?

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton
87.1%


Donald Trump
12.8%

[FONT=&quot]Aug. 11, 2015: Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls, And Losing The Nomination[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With Trump’s poll support apparently only increasing with time, Silver sought to explain how Trump’s surge in the polls was actually coming at the expense of any chance he had of actually winning the nomination.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In Silver’s telling, Trump’s abrasive, attention-getting rhetoric was serving to make the primary a “referendum” on Trump, a referendum where 75 percent of Republicans were voting against him. Other GOP candidates had less support, but were at least viewed positively by the party. Once the field shrank, Silver said, one of them would almost certainly be able to crush Trump head to head.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination,” Silver said. “It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

.[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

Who would win the presidency today?

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton
87.1%


Donald Trump
12.8%

[FONT=&quot]Nov. 23, 2015: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Three months later, Trump was still stubbornly refusing to fade away. So, Silver waded back into the fray to tell the news media to stop panicking, and to declare that betting market odds placing Trump’s chances of victory at 20 percent were “substantially too high.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The key problems with believing in Trump, Silver said, were his persistently-high unfavorability even among Republicans, along with the fact that the vast majority of voters would only decide whom to support at the last minute. Those last-minute deciders, Silver suggested, could break against Trump in a big way.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“[C]ould Trump win?,” he asked. “We confront two stubborn facts: first, that nobody remotely like Trump has won a major-party nomination in the modern era. And second, as is always a problem in analysis of presidential campaigns, we don’t have all that many data points, so unprecedented events can occur with some regularity. For my money, that adds up to Trump’s chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent. Your mileage may vary.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT].

 

[Willie99]

"It's official, it's over, Rubio is the nominee"

 

[superbeets]

Back under double digits chance for the pathetic loser in the now cast)

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton
90.5%

Donald Trump9.5%​

[FONT=&quot]Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Silver was quick to pounce after Trump finished second to Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucuses.[/FONT]
[h=3]After Reading This, Will You Ever Take Nate Silver's Opinions Seriously?[/h] Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

[FONT=&quot]“Trump underperformed his polls, which had him winning Iowa with 29 percent of the vote, while Cruz and Rubio outperformed theirs,” he wrote. “It’s not uncommon for the polls to be off in Iowa and other early-voting states, but the manner in which Trump underachieved is revealing. It turns out that few late-deciding voters went for him … Iowa voters made Trump appear to be much more of a factional candidate along the lines of [Pat] Buchanan, who received 23 percent of Iowa’s vote in 1996, than the juggernaut he’s been billed as.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Still, Trump’s sustained polling success was finally cracking even Silver’s resolve. Instead of being openly dismissive of Trump, he simply noted that Trump’s real strength would be revealed by how New Hampshire voted. We all know how that went. On Feb. 10, Silver finally anointed Trump as the GOP frontrunner.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

.[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

Yes rough election cycle for both Guesser and his bum chum Nate Silver



It’s been a rough election cycle for forecasting guru Nate Silver and his website FiveThirtyEight. Silver became a household name after he almost perfectly predicted the results of the 2008 and 2012 general elections, and his esteem was such that to some people he had removed almost all the suspense from elections.
Then Trump happened.
Nate Silver and his colleagues at FiveThirtyEight were extremely dismissive of Trump’s chances even after he rose to the top of the polls in the summer of 2015, and they repeatedly said as much. But ultimately, Trump proved to be a “black swan” event that was devastating to the retrospective models Silver relies upon to make predictions. Silver himself has been forthright about his failure, issuing a mea culpa .

.

 

[The Guesser]

The 2 above Gutless, Lying idiots, Wrong Way, and the no life sick Brit Twit, have a standing, open ban bet invitation, to actually back their words. Of course, they are nowhere to be found, because they don't believe a word they post. Just like the Candidate they back, Gutless, Pathetic #LOSERS.

 

[TomGshotput]

But ultimately, Trump proved to be a “black swan” event that was devastating to the retrospective models Silver relies upon to make predictions.

It was only because of Silver's horrible predictions that you were able to make all those 40-1 bets on Trump winning the election. Hopefully he wins in a few weeks and you get your big payday out of it.

 

[Acebb]

Classic thread.
The 2 banned losers and duhfelch assuring everyone about Hillary's victory.

 

[Acebb]

Nate Silver forecasts the Republicans have a better chance of getting to 54 Senators than the Democrats do of getting to 51 Senators.


LOL

 

[Willie99]

damn, haven't looked at this thread in a while, another classic

does anyone really think they can show their faces around here again?

 

[Dave007inVegas]

damn, haven't looked at this thread in a while, another classic

does anyone really think they can show their faces around here again?

You bet they can. Some just 16 days away. That is of couse if their banned status get lifted.

 

[Avocado33]

"but the convention was a failure"

and "there was no convention bounce"

----If the election were held Monday, Donald Trump would likely win.That's what renowned statistician Nate Silver projected on Mondayfor his data journalism outlet FiveThirtyEight.
In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls Monday.
Silver's model had Trump winning in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He would win 285 electoral votes in Silver's model.
It's the first time in Silver's "Now-cast" forecast that Trump has been projected to win.
However, in Silver's polls-only forecast and in his polls-plus forecast, Clinton was still favored to come out on top. In the polls-only model, Clinton had a 53.7% chance of winning, while in the polls-plus model, Silver gave Clinton a 58.2% chance of winning in November. But those numbers are a drastic drop-off from where they recently were — hovering around 80%.
Silver raised eyebrows Friday on Twitter when he pointed out "how plausible it is that Trump could become president."

Follow


​

Nate Silver ------------------------------------

Nate Silver is no dummy.

People who said he was way off in 2016 are flat-out wrong. Silver was more correct than most. The guy gave Trump a 30% chance to win the election, which is a lot more than people realize. People jump to the conclusion that he said Hillary would win, when really all he said is that she was more likely to win than Trump. 70% is nowhere near 100%. He gave Hillary the nod, because he tipped the toss-up states in her favor -- states that were easily winnable by both candidates.

Silver didn't blunder the 2016 election. He was inaccurate, but I would say he was a hell of a lot more accurate than the majority of forecasters out there.

 

[Willie99]

Nate Silver is no dummy.

People who said he was way off in 2016 are flat-out wrong. Silver was more correct than most. The guy gave Trump a 30% chance to win the election, which is a lot more than people realize. People jump to the conclusion that he said Hillary would win, when really all he said is that she was more likely to win than Trump. 70% is nowhere near 100%. He gave Hillary the nod, because he tipped the toss-up states in her favor -- states that were easily winnable by both candidates.

Silver didn't blunder the 2016 election. He was inaccurate, but I would say he was a hell of a lot more accurate than the majority of forecasters out there.

My biggest argument against the Silver love (before 2016 his words were gospel to the left) was that his predictions were very similar to what can be found on Real Clear Politics "poll averages"

I also pointed out he weighs what polls to give more weight for various reasons, and when his underlying numbers were revealed in one particular race that he gave pollster XYZ (don't remember the name) a 70% weight when their poll favored the democrat and like a 40% rate when the same pollster using the same methodology favored the Republican. I'm not sure there was a plausible explanation for such.

One thing is certain, in 2016 Silver's polling and / or adjustments of such have the same inherent bias as the polls he cites in his analysis. The biggest irony in all of this is when people tell us how good Silver is (and he's good) AND they cite the polling data as being wholly accurate when Silver himself adjusts those same polls based on what he thinks is bias (or inaccuracies) found in each poll

He does a lot of work an explaining, RCP just uses averages without "adjustments or weights", and they yield very similar results

 

[Willie99]

I think this thread was all about hypocrisy and the lies of the criminal corrupt criminal always lying democratic media

Every network was using the expression "there was NO convention bounce" for Trump, when their poll adjusting darling (not mocking Silver, just describing what he does) said TRUMP WAS IN THE LEAD after the convention

 

[Acebb]

Nate Silver is no dummy.

Yes, yes he is.

He followed up his "Trump only has a 2% chance to win the GOP primary and Rubio is the clear winner" with forecasts of Hillary at 90 and 88% to win.

If you think Nate Silver is anything other than a Democratic partisan, you're delusional.