patrick.net

marcus is NOT deplorable says

You tell me. If someone says something has a 1 in 3 chance of happening and it happens, were they wrong ?

Anyone can make predictions using probabilities and never be right or wrong. Big deal.

Ironman says

Thanks everyone.

I owe you a beer on a cruise ship.

Ironman says

Nate's final chart.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

Nate had Trump winning most of the primaries. His model gave Trump a better chance than many other analysts. He talked about the large numbers of undecideds and Hillary's electoral college problems. That's why he gave TRump such a high chance.

His credibility is in tact.If he were a pollster, then you might have a point.

Idiocracy is here folks.

Marcus, he was wrong. His models failed him. He went on his own bias and lost big (3 times). I'm sorry you butthurt liberals can't see through the fact that your "prince nate" isn't all he's cracked up to be.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

What you can not fathom is that his 1 in 3 assessment of the probability maybe have been as good as it possibly could have been. I'm not saying that it was. But you don't get it. This wasn't about guessing right.

Wow.... getting desperate eh? This WAS about guessing right. Otherwise, Nate wouldn't be in business in the first place.

I agree, started backpedaling near the end, but it was too late. Isn't Nate's claim to fame predicting every state for Obama? If so, he came no where close for this one. Hell, my prediction was closer than his was...

Let's see... he missed, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania

I missed... Wisconsin. Holy shit! I should start a blog now.

Nate's prediction on top, mine on the bottom:

marcus is NOT deplorable says

marcus is NOT deplorable says

Idiocracy is here folks.

Truth hurts.

For the record, here was my prediction: https://patrick.net/Post+your+Election+Maps+here

Nate Lead, more like it.

Ironman says

It's really sad where we are in the country that the polling companies have to manipulate the data they publish to make their overlords happy. I hope they wake up now.

Plus, the majority of the media has really done the country a disservice with all the fake and false reporting. Maybe they'll wake up now, but I doubt it.

Agree. You pointed this out the entire election season... Trump did as well. It was pretty amazing seeing so many states turn red, that were supposed to be blue.

Ironman says

My wife called me from her office, she works in the pharma field with high level professionals. She told me many of her female co-workers are walking around MAJORLY bitching that Trump won. But, she told me they are spewing the primary "talking points" that have been spewed by CNN, WaPo, NYT, etc., he's racist, he assaults women, he's vulgar, he doesn't pay his taxes, etc....

These are professional women that got sucked into the false narrative of the MSM.... I really wonder if there is hope for this country...

Maybe we really are TOTALLY FUCKED in this country?

Agreed. This is still the main false narrative. Bigotry, hatred, misogyny blah blah. These are working mothers and their concern should be for their family and loved ones, fiscally and emotionally, not about some other people whose stories they cannot verify. This is where the nuclear family breaks apart, pushed my the regressive left and their media pundits.

Ironman says

I'm just glad that Hillary didn't win, she's just plain evil.

Same here. I didn't care if Johnson won. Hillary had too much baggage, and has escaped prison one too many times. The list of scandals under that family is mind blowing.

Ironman says

My wife called me from her office, she works in the pharma field with high level professionals. She told me many of her female co-workers are walking around MAJORLY bitching that Trump won. But, she told me they are spewing the primary "talking points" that have been spewed by CNN, WaPo, NYT, etc., he's racist, he assaults women, he's vulgar, he doesn't pay his taxes, etc....

Incredibly sad.

The gender split can be explained by the differences in how men and women think. Men tend to be more problem oriented. Women tend to be more socially oriented. Thus, given a situation where the media is pushing the idea that all of society hates Trump and wouldn't vote for him, they'll latch onto reasons to follow the social herd. Men, however, retain much more tolerance for holding different opinions that fly in the face of social norms.
So media manipulation works way better on women than on men.
And nobody can honestly argue that the media wasn't in full fledged propaganda mode against Trump for months!

As an aside, anybody realize

Our First Lady is freakin' HOT

Everytime someone would hit me with one of these I would just say. You can't listen to CNN and Huffing Poo!

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-seth-meyers-roast-trump-2011-presidential-election-2016-11

At the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner, Seth Meyers and President Obama joked about the possibilityof a Trump White House run.

White male AND FEMALE working-class & middle-class (and also most blacks and Hispanics) have been GIVEN THE SHAFT UNDER OBAMA & HITLERY AS THE DEMOCRATS SUCKED WALL STREET & BANK COCK FOR 8 LONG YEARS LIKE NO ADMINISTRATIONS BEFORE - Democratic OR Republican.

Obama was Wall Street's, Big Pharma 's, Big Banks, Big Corporations', Big Defense's ERRAND BOY.

The white working-class and middle-class are under immense stress in no small part because of Obama/Clintons.

So are blacks and Latinos.

Let's see if Trump acts more independently than Obama/Bush/Clintons.

Tenpoundbass says

Everytime someone would hit me with one of these I would just say. You can't listen to CNN and Huffing Poo!

TBD, you stupid redneck dumbass. Are you disagreeing with the HOLY, UNIMPEACHABLE NUMBERS? Why, the finest Minds insist they are correct!

The trippy thing was how the bookies had it wrong too, it was funny to watch how the odds changed in a hurry last night.

Hat Tip to CIC

What specifically were you looking at that looked hinky to you?

That is interesting.

What do you think of the contention that Trump won because of a low D voter turn out.

Or was this because Obama worked to get a higher voter turn out? Using ACORN.

Hats off to you Ironman! You kept the faith while others of us weakened under the theory "why would so many organizations be lying about his chances." Seemed hard to imagine, but turned out to be exactly what was happening.

Well... That.... Or someone posted a stunning picture that may have converted vast swathes of undecided voters into Trump supporters.

Either way ;)

So then the bookies missed that the polls were rigged too? I mean if you can't trust the bookies who can you trust?

I guess so, but they make their living off of being right. It cost them when they are wrong.

Strategist says

Anyone can make predictions using probabilities and never be right or wrong. Big deal.

It's also true that someone can make the most accurate possible assessments of probability, and guess what ? One third of the time they assess that something has a one in three chance of happening, it happens.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you guys to understand about this. What ? You think with the state polls Nate he had access to, the same ones everyone else had access to, he should have been able to say that Trump was the favorite ?

It's also true that someone can make the most accurate possible assessments of probability, and guess what ? One third of the time they predict that something has a one in three chance of happening, it happens.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you guys to understand about this. What ? You think with the state polls Nate he had access to, the same ones everyone else had access to, he should have been able to say that Trump was the favorite ?
=====================
Shit! Did anyone remember Nate's participation trophy?

Another proud idiot.

Giant alligator tears....

The real reason the polls were wrong: Shy Tory Syndrome

They lied to polsters because the media demonized Trump supporters.

Nobody is proud of their own stupidity like today's right wingers.

Wow. And trump has announced a hit list...
mayers is toast.

Tenpoundbass says

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-seth-meyers-roast-trump-2011-presidential-election-2016-11

At the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner, Seth Meyers and President Obama joked about the possibilityof a Trump White House run.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

Another proud idiot.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Nate Silver's biggest supporter.

Fixed.

joshuarito is really jizzed up over the outcome of a coin toss.

My take on Nate Silvers work this election:
1. He gave Trump a much much higher chance of winning than the Newspapers, which used models with bigger assumptions. So he gets credit for that.
2. Based a lot on reading Silver's blog I said that Hillary would probably win the popular vote by 1 to 7 pts. She won by just outside of that (0-1 pts), so I was mildly surprised, but not hugely The reason that I picked +-3 points as reasonable is that polls often miss by 2 pts. I gave an extra point swing due to the 'different' nature of this election, the challenge pollsters had in figuring out likely voters in this election, and the fact that people filter their calls more due to spam calls.
3. Silver gave Trump a 30% chance of winning the electoral college. That is not too far off from even chances - it's two coin tosses out of 10 away from 50/50.
4. Lots of idiots will get the result of a coin toss correct. That doesn't make them a genious. Getting many right in a row is necessary for that. Ironman is now 1 for 1 on his coin-toss predictions while I've been watching.

Ironman's main argument was that the polls oversampled dems by about huge amounts (often > 10 pts). Yet, the result was off by only 3 pts. This is pretty consistent with past polls and election results. The 2012 results were also off by 3 pts, but in the other direction.

When you go state by state and look at how many states were toss ups, you see that a 1 or 2 pts swing can make a huge difference in the electoral college. When person who the polls predict to win outperforms the polls, then the state by state predictions end up good (2012). If the person who the polls say will win ends up under-performing (2016) then the state by state results look terribly wrong. That fact is very predictable.

People were surprised by the results, but they shouldn't have been shocked, especially if they had been reading Nate's blog at all.

That said - nice work Ironman. I don't agree on the media skewing the polls conspiracy theory, but you got the results right, so you deserve credit for that.

YesYNot says

joshuarito is really jizzed up over the outcome of a coin toss.

No, it's just fun trolling you.

But your boy Nate was wrong (bigtime) :)

YesYNot says

3. Silver gave Trump a 30% chance of winning the electoral college. That is not too far off from even chances - it's two coin tosses out of 10 away from 50/50.

Omfg!

joshuatrio says

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Nate Silver's biggest supporter.

Not being retarded hardly makes me a Nate supporter. You havent challenged anything I've said with anything but emotional nonsense.

You don't even comprehend what I said.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

It's also true that someone can make the most accurate possible assessments of probability, and guess what ? One third of the time they assess that something has a one in three chance of happening, it happens.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you guys to understand about this. What ? You think with the state polls Nate he had access to, the same ones everyone else had access to, he should have been able to say that Trump was the favorite ?

marcus is NOT deplorable says

You don't even comprehend what I said.

Please take a moment to read a few snippets from our previous dialogue.

joshuatrio says

marcus is NOT deplorable says

Nate had Trump winning most of the primaries. His model gave Trump a better chance than many other analysts. He talked about the large numbers of undecideds and Hillary's electoral college problems. That's why he gave TRump such a high chance.

His credibility is in tact.If he were a pollster, then you might have a point.

Idiocracy is here folks.

Marcus, he was wrong. His models failed him. He went on his own bias and lost big (3 times). I'm sorry you butthurt liberals can't see through the fact that your "prince nate" isn't all he's cracked up to be.

joshuatrio says

Wow.... getting desperate eh? This WAS about guessing right. Otherwise, Nate wouldn't be in business in the first place.

I agree, started backpedaling near the end, but it was too late. Isn't Nate's claim to fame predicting every state for Obama? If so, he came no where close for this one. Hell, my prediction was closer than his was...

Let's see... he missed, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania

I missed... Wisconsin. Holy shit! I should start a blog now.

One of the comments on poor Nate's site:

"I'm sorry but I just can't help feeling like you somehow let me down Nate. I'm still a fan, I still believe you're the best out there, but unfortunately in your business, you don't get to be so wrong and retain credibility...."

Yes, and CIC is a genius, becasue what he wished to be true was closer to what happened than what was concluded by good analysis.

joshuatrio says

marcus is NOT deplorable says

Nate had Trump winning most of the primaries. His model gave Trump a better chance than many other analysts. He talked about the large numbers of undecideds and Hillary's electoral college problems. That's why he gave TRump such a high chance.

Dumbass, I'd encourage you to go to the first page of this thread.

I understand your point, have already challenged it

I guess if by challenge you mean showing clearly that you don't comprehend what I'm saying.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

I guess if by challenge you mean showing clearly that you don't comprehend what I'm saying.

joshuatrio says

Marcus, he was wrong. His models failed him. He went on his own bias and lost big (3 times). I'm sorry you butthurt liberals can't see through the fact that your "prince nate" isn't all he's cracked up to be.

.......

Wow.... getting desperate eh? This WAS about guessing right. Otherwise, Nate wouldn't be in business in the first place.

I agree, started backpedaling near the end, but it was too late. Isn't Nate's claim to fame predicting every state for Obama? If so, he came no where close for this one. Hell, my prediction was closer than his was...

Let's see... he missed, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania

I missed... Wisconsin. Holy shit! I should start a blog now.

joshuatrio says

No, it's just fun trolling you.

At least you realize that you are not saying anything useful, and won't stand by your comments. Stand back folks. Don't get jizzed on.

YesYNot says

At least you realize that you are not saying anything useful, and won't stand by your comments.

You fail at basic reading comprehension... And I've stood by my comments from the beginning... But yes, it is fun trolling you...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/

http://www.thewrap.com/nate-silver-blew-it-bigly-on-the-election-can-his-brand-recover/

“Nate was arrogant. His numbers were all over the place. The title of ‘guru’ is now gone,” The Hill media reporter Joe Concha told TheWrap. He said Silver’s career will survive, but “never again will he be held in any revered regard.”

I'm sorry man, he was wrong on Trump. Quit being so whiny and accept it. He gave Clinton over 70% chance of winning and Trump walked away with over 300 electoral votes.