Well, not exactly but he says that right now Obama has 77% chance of winning. So, technically, Romney has 23% chance and that can happen.
What's your take? It's interesting how Nate is getting a lot of attention and bashing from conservatives saying that he's so way off. Even one conservative had the nerve to call him a feminine guy (he's openly gay) which has nothing to do with his talent.
But at the same time, liberals pin so much hope on Nate.
sublime LightWorks wrote: It's interesting how you seem to come up with meaningless after meaningless postings.
Amazing. 99.9% chance of that it seems.
Sheeesh, that was uncalled for.
I honestly don't think Romney has much of a chance, but hey, stranger things have happened.
Despite all the polls I truly believe that when it comes down to it Romney is just not all that likeable and you will have a lot of people who typically vote Republican just say "screw it, I'm too busy to vote" on election day. Granted, I'm no expert on the voting habits of others but that is the impression I have.
Now attacking a professional pollster for being too "feminine"? That is crazy lame.
I remember Nate Silver very well in 2008 and reading his blog everyday. I was confident in his analysis. He predicted all but one states voting for the right candidate.
But this year, I am not so confident but I am surprised he seems to give him a good chance of winning... 77%? That seems a lot of confidence although I know it doesn't mean he's gonna win.
I am curious how this election turns out and if Nate Silver is quite close to what he predicts, then he's definitely up to something.
Strange it seems like a lot of people here are like Pauline Kael who is reported to have said ""couldn't believe Nixon had won", since no one she knew had voted for him" (quote is also attribute to others" after Nikon's landslide victory in 72 taking 49 States! So many seem to know no one other than RW nuts for Romney, dispite his leading in many/most polls.
Nate Silver does good work. And he'd be the first to admit that his numbers change based on the data that he has. Also, his point about Obama's chance of winning is based on the electoral college. And the reality is that has always been an uphill battle for Romney.
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,948
Santa Rosa, California, US
netmodel wrote: I remember Nate Silver very well in 2008 and reading his blog everyday. I was confident in his analysis. He predicted all but one states voting for the right candidate.
But this year, I am not so confident but I am surprised he seems to give him a good chance of winning... 77%? That seems a lot of confidence although I know it doesn't mean he's gonna win.
I am curious how this election turns out and if Nate Silver is quite close to what he predicts, then he's definitely up to something.
I respect Nate Silver's approach and track record too. But even people coming at it from entirely other directions arrive at similar numbers.
Prediction markets: intrade.com is currently at 31.7% for a Romney win.
London bookmakers: an Obama win is paying out at about 1:3 (equivalent to 75% chance). A Romney win is paying out at about 5:2 (equivalent to about 29%).
Yes, of course either of them can win... but I am more surprised at his confidence that Obama has 77% chance of winning. I cannot figure out where he calculated that. He made it clear that he does NOT care about national polls and he was right to ignore them but rather focused on state polls.
T
Posts: 53,533
Washington, District of Columbia, US
netmodel wrote: I remember Nate Silver very well in 2008 and reading his blog everyday. I was confident in his analysis. He predicted all but one states voting for the right candidate.
But this year, I am not so confident but I am surprised he seems to give him a good chance of winning... 77%? That seems a lot of confidence although I know it doesn't mean he's gonna win.
I am curious how this election turns out and if Nate Silver is quite close to what he predicts, then he's definitely up to something.
Election night 2008 I was Nate Silver's makeup artist, he was with Dan Rather that night....he's VERY focused and intense. I had the toughest time controlling his hair that night. Ughhh, I'll never forget!! Nice guy.
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,948
Santa Rosa, California, US
netmodel wrote: Yes, of course either of them can win... but I am more surprised at his confidence that Obama has 77% chance of winning. I cannot figure out where he calculated that. He made it clear that he does NOT care about national polls and he was right to ignore them but rather focused on state polls.
But still, that's awfully confident.
The number 77% is not an indication of how confident he is. The number is the result of a series of calculations.
GK photo
Posts: 24,881
Laguna Beach, California, US
Robert Helm wrote: Strange it seems like a lot of people here are like Pauline Kael who is reported to have said ""couldn't believe Nixon had won", since no one she knew had voted for him" (quote is also attribute to others" after Nikon's landslide victory in 72 taking 49 States! So many seem to know no one other than RW nuts for Romney, dispite his leading in many/most polls.
Reality may hit hard on some.
the quote from pk has been butchered over time. what she really said was different. it's funny though, because the spirit was even more elitist than the mistaken one.
T wrote: same here. Will be a long night.
nah, obama will win 52-48 in the popular, and will amass somewhere around a 285 in the ec.
i'll be in bed by midnight. the only fun i'll have is watching the fox news talking domes implode. they'll already be mapping the 2016 strategies.
Andrew Kaiser wrote: Now attacking a professional pollster for being too "feminine"? That is crazy lame.
Silver is not a pollster, he's a statitician. His llama applies proprietary analytics to available polling data to create the probability of specific outcomes. Essentially he crunches the polling data, he doesn't do the polling.
T
Posts: 53,533
Washington, District of Columbia, US
GK photo wrote:
Robert Helm wrote: Strange it seems like a lot of people here are like Pauline Kael who is reported to have said ""couldn't believe Nixon had won", since no one she knew had voted for him" (quote is also attribute to others" after Nikon's landslide victory in 72 taking 49 States! So many seem to know no one other than RW nuts for Romney, dispite his leading in many/most polls.
Reality may hit hard on some.
the quote from pk has been butchered over time. what she really said was different. it's funny though, because the spirit was even more elitist than the mistaken one.
nah, obama will win 52-48 in the popular, and will amass somewhere around a 285 in the ec.
i'll be in bed by midnight. the only fun i'll have is watching the fox news talking domes implode. they'll already be mapping the 2016 strategies.
T wrote: Election night 2008 I was Nate Silver's makeup artist, he was with Dan Rather that night....he's VERY focused and intense. I had the toughest time controlling his hair that night. Ughhh, I'll never forget!! Nice guy.
But what intrigues me is how fickle the public polls are. Why? I mean, I am pretty set in my own way of thinking and it would take a long time if I were to change my mind. But public polls seem to show that they change their minds EVERYDAY!
But right now, it seems that the odds of Obama winning is increasing.
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,948
Santa Rosa, California, US
netmodel wrote: But what intrigues me is how fickle the public polls are. Why? I mean, I am pretty set in my own way of thinking and it would take a long time if I were to change my mind. But public polls seem to show that they change their minds EVERYDAY!
But right now, it seems that the odds of Obama winning is increasing.
Some of it is just random variation in the polling process, not a fickle public. The "changes" that news outlets are going on about fall mostly within the margins of sampling error.
Also, small changes in the polls become news because the race is close. When a prediction changes from 51% to 49%, that's exciting. When a prediction changes from 41% to 39% it's dull.
netmodel wrote: Well, not exactly but he says that right now Obama has 77% chance of winning. So, technically, Romney has 23% chance and that can happen.
What's your take? It's interesting how Nate is getting a lot of attention and bashing from conservatives saying that he's so way off. Even one conservative had the nerve to call him a feminine guy (he's openly gay) which has nothing to do with his talent.
But at the same time, liberals pin so much hope on Nate.
EDIT: ugh, topic title should say Nate Silver, not Silver Nate. but hell with it.
A pollster is a pollster no matter what their sexual orientation is.. so I agree with you assessment of this man being talented.
And it is because of information like this (not just by Nate but others too)... that liberals after November 6 will be saying "But Nate said Obama was going to win".
Romney clearly has the momentum on his side and i just feel Nate is wrong in his prediction.
Romney is going to win Ohio.. that makes the election his.
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,948
Santa Rosa, California, US
Mike Kelcher wrote: There's a reason why most people have never heard of Nate Silver. Being wrong about the election won't help his lack of popularity.
I don't think he's striving for personal popularity. In any case anyone who's well informed about election polling knows who he is.
I don't think he's striving for personal popularity. In any case anyone who's well informed about election polling knows who he is.
Yep... so much for his "lack of popularity..."
"We’re less than a week away from election, and the political media is setting someone up to lose. Oddly, that person is neither of the candidates, but political polling and statistics blogger Nate Silver. Politico’s Dylan Byersis leading the charge, raising the possibility that Silver “could be a one-term celebrity”. Silver puts a 74% chance on an Obama victory, but that makes no sense to Byers, because “polls have [Romney] almost neck-and-neck with the incumbent”. Byers brings in quotes from insiders and pundits to support the idea that the race is a “toss-up” and that Silver is, in Joe Scarborough’s words, a “joke”."
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,948
Santa Rosa, California, US
netmodel wrote: Silver puts a 74% chance on an Obama victory, but that makes no sense to Byers, because “polls have [Romney] almost neck-and-neck with the incumbent”.
Anyone who confuses the probability estimates with the poll percentages isn't qualified to judge.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Wysiwyg Photography wrote: Romney is going to win Ohio.. that makes the election his.
Cuica Cafezinho wrote: Do not have children. Please.
Wysiwyg's statement and prediction seems accurate and rooted in more fact than Nate Whatshisname's.
"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Romney with 50% support to President Obama’s 48%. One percent (1%) likes some other candidate, while another one percent (1%) remains undecided."
SDS Colorado
Posts: 431
Woodland Park, Colorado, US
A pollster is a pollster no matter what their sexual orientation is.. so I agree with you assessment of this man being talented.
And it is because of information like this (not just by Nate but others too)... that liberals after November 6 will be saying "But Nate said Obama was going to win".
Romney clearly has the momentum on his side and i just feel Nate is wrong in his prediction.
Romney is going to win Ohio.. that makes the election his.
I'd like to hear why you think Romney will take Ohio. Since 10/01, Silver has tracked 43 polls in Ohio. 5 were tied, Romney led in 6, and Obama led in 32. In the last week, Romney led in one, Obama led in 12. Why aren't we seeing any evidence of this Romney momentum?
The most recent Florida polls are mixed, but all very close. My count of neighborhood lawn signs would put Romney in the lead. Maybe I'm in a bad neighborhood.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
SDS Colorado wrote: A pollster is a pollster no matter what their sexual orientation is.. so I agree with you assessment of this man being talented.
I'd like to hear why you think Romney will take Ohio. Since 10/01, Silver has tracked 43 polls in Ohio. 5 were tied, Romney led in 6, and Obama led in 32. In the last week, Romney led in one, Obama led in 12.
Tracking 43 polls? Really? All a person needs to do is to track a single poll with an undisputed history of accuracy.
SDS Colorado wrote: Why aren't we seeing any evidence of this Romney momentum?
| 
| 
| edu