FiveThirtyEight’s “classic” forecast — which has become the gold standard in elections forecasting — gives Democrats an 85.6 percent chance of retaking the House and Republicans a 81.3 percent chance of holding the Senate, as of Tuesday evening.
So both of those are highly likely to happen, right?
Well, one person who’s been trying to complicate that assessment is FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver himself.
One point Silver has made over and over again in recent weeks is that even if you take his House and Senate forecasts at face value, when you think about both of them together, there’s around a 40 percent chance that one of them will be wrong.
If your job involves working with numbers, you can make the numbers say whatever the fuck you want them to say.
Hunter Cruz
So if he somehow ends up dead wrong again, why should he ever be employed at all again? As opposed to asking little Timmy what does he think will happen? Why does this guy deserve payment for predictions?
Justin Scott
Uncertainty is a law of reality and a healthy and well-developed ego can process uncertainty (multiple outcomes) instead of regarding it as "terrifying."
This over-emotionality about EVERYTHING is so unhealthy.
He has clearly asked his buddies to keep writing articles like this. I think he doesn't trust his own models, and he's smart enough to know that if he is wrong again he will have no more credibility and it will hurt his livelihood.
He's probably scared as fuck lol.
Camden Collins
It’s worse than that. There have been no instances of each house going in opposite directions occurring in modern times.
What's funny is he never said that during the 2016 election. This
Andrew Lee
every candidate has either a 100% or 0% chance to win. every other prediction is literally identical to 50/50, "i don't know." the universe is deterministic.
Brandon Sanders
Nathaniel Copper
Brayden Thomas
hahaha
Ryan Brooks
Did he get hair implants? How do you get so much hair back from this? Or is it just a hell of a combover.
People are essentially lying on some of the polls and opinions. That is not the only thing that goes into the forecast, but it's a factor.
Xavier Hill
More than anyone else. He would also have been highly ridiculed if he came out and said, "You know, I really think Trump is going to win." He just couldn't. Think of the reaction to Anne Coulter.
Nathan Carter
Will nate vapor finally disappear after this election?
That forecast sounds about right. I think dems have a 100% chance of winning the house though.
Gavin Morgan
He works in probability.
If he estimates someone has an 80% chance to win, they should lose 20% of the time.
If he's correct 100% of the time, he's good at politics, but really shitty at statistics.
Thomas Miller
The Democrats made a big mistake with Kavanaugh, and nobody’s talking about it: they educated the public. The public now knows full well that the Senate and Senate only confirms SC appointments. Any chance they had at the Senate is now gone.
Carter Baker
No, that was Huffington post.
Huffington post mocked Silver for having Trump at a greater than 30% chance of winning, the highest of all statisticians tracking the election.
Andrew Perez
>Nate Silver
what an odd last name i wonder which group of people are known for having surnames of precious metals
Polls are a lot like female purity. If you believe in it, its real bro.
Angel Johnson
Nice pic
Jack Sanchez
and since elections happen only once, this is why election probability is a pseudoscience. nobody's predictions can ever be falsified unless they are 100% or 0%. anything else is a literal 50/50
Andrew Peterson
>again He's never truly been wrong. Check your facts.
Jason Gray
Well, you can just look at each individual congressperson's chances of winning and pretty easily calculate how many were correct. You can just go to his site, look at how many House seats he estimates at 60% probability, and if more than 40% of them lose, you know how accurate he was.
Luis James
he looks unhealthy
Josiah Price
What's up with this nigga's hairline?
Jose Phillips
The basic information is too unrelieable. However you can measure trends and get a guestimate of the current state of the race.
Nates calculation stacking only ammplifies existing imprecision to the extreme.
it was done for the sake of facebook news which is filtered. so both sides can hear what they want if they rely on facebook news
Ian Richardson
Wasnt he using """""""""probability"""""""""" to determine if Kavanaugh was telling lies or not? Dude is a hack
Gabriel Adams
>gives Democrats an 85.6 percent chance of retaking the House bookies have it way different
nate silvershekelsteinberg can spread propaganda as much as he wants and he only has his "reputation" at stake, bookies (also kikes) would lose a shitload of money if they weighted the chances wrong. i'm going to believe the jew that has his money at stake.
>She’s a 1/5 chalk (-500) at both Ladbrokes and William Hill UK across the pond – meaning it would take a $500 wager to win $100 – and she’s all the way up to -650 at Sportsbook.ag.
Brandon Jackson
bookies also have to factor in how people will bet so the lines they set arent always final score accurate
Owen Morris
R A R E
Logan Reyes
honestly, i think people read FiveThirtyEight because its well funded enough to make simple to read and look at graphics like the interactive map that has you hover over and look at what candidates and percentages are for a certain race, regardless of whether or not they're accurate.
Juan Hughes
its amplifying imprecisions of real clear politics
push polls are aware of the weight of rcp averages and have to push even harder
Because he'll twist his numbers to favor democrats. That's the only reason he's of use to them
David Long
Nate Silver was part of the crowd claiming Hillary had a 92% chance to win on election morning 2016. Here's how he looked later as reality caught up to his kike polls:
I'm surprised people think that the repubs will GAIN seats. Nate has it as a less than 1% chance. Nate may have been off in his predictions for the 2016 election, but he wasn't wrong by a factor of 99%.
Henry Phillips
>Nate Silver was part of the crowd claiming Hillary had a 92% chance But he wasn't? His model gave what was probably the most conservative estimate, and it worked exactly as intended.
Jace Miller
>Nate may have been off in his predictions for the 2016 election
How was he off? Didn't he give trump a 28% chance of winning?
Brandon Butler
He wasnt even wrong. He gave Trump a very solid chance of winning and was literally warning people that Hillary's electoral victory was far from certain based on the polling numbers.
Camden Smith
Say what you want, but Silver was actually the only person going into the election with a reasonable projection. Everyone else was HILLARY 99.9% SURE TO WIN. He had it at like 70-30. Which all things considered is pretty fair, Trump WAS the underdog.
Silver did nothing wrong.
Thomas Baker
If you want to know whether or not someone understands statistics, just ask them about the 2016 elections.
Austin Miller
Yes. Off as in he wasn't right with his prediction.
His model didn't exactly predict a Clinton victory. His model simulates the election tens of thousands of times based on polling results with their margins of error and other factors through random sampling, and Trump won in 29% (roughly 2:5 odds) of the simulations on Election Day.
Owen Hill
>he predicted the dems would take senate >posts picture showing the outcomes are equally likely
Gabriel Russell
I just want to address the elephant in the room here, did nate sandstone really just add 15% and 20% chance of both forecasts being wrong to come to around 40% wrong forecast? Did he really do that? Because the actual chance of one or both of these forecasts being wrong is around 30% if you actually know how percentages work. Completely ignoring the obvious political games he's playing, this is just sad.
He did get the math wrong but so did you. The odds of one or more of his predictions being wrong is: P(1 or 2 wrong) = (1 - P(both right)) = 1 - (0.813 * 0.856)) = 0.31 = 31%.
Brody Smith
...
Colton Ross
And this is taking his predictions at face value.
Liam Baker
>Why should he be hired again? Jewish nepotism.
Ian Barnes
Elections arent probabilistic events, its a deterministic event The most fool proof way to do it involves pooling at least a few hundreds of people in EVERY SINGLE county, then doing some comparison to older election numbers from said regions.
Of course, it would be extremely expensive, so they just pool people from fewer places, and extrapolate the data with an error %. Which is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong
Levi Carter
Horrible roudning. There's .856 * .813 = .69, rounded. There's around a 30% chance, assuming the statistics are valid, that either or both predictions will be false.
