Will he redeem himself or look like an idiot for a second time?
He will be wrong again and will become a recluse only to hang himself.
>Will he redeem himself or look like an idiot for a second time?
He was right in 2016 -- Trump did actually have about a one in five chance of winning and would only win if everything aligned well. That's what happened. Nate Silver speaks the truth and Jow Forums can't accept this and hates proper science.
He's now saying his 85% for Dems taking the House is like 50/50.
He's trying to cover his ass now.
Take more muslims into your shitty country.
what do you guys think he is wrong about
>Take more muslims into your shitty country.
y u so mad?
Nate Silver is very accurate and now you're in a rage. y?
He needs to get #metoo'd before he has my permission to die.
Nate Silver is only right when Democrats win. Lots of people can lay claim to that.
That's some "parting of the red sea" shit up there on his head.
He’s already played both sides so no matter what he comes out right
His day in the sun is long over
The Virgin Nate vs The Chad Bill
He looks like enjoys the misleading info he conjures
Because we're sick of shilling.
I don't mind if he gives democrats false hope. It makes the loss that much more crushing for them. Either way I can't wait for tomorrow night, this place is going to be a fucking shit show.
SHOTS FIRED!
> Solid/Lean D
kek
He’s hedging like a Mexican landscaper now. I think he knows things are going to go pear-shaped.
The Jews are so filled with hate they want to hurt someone even if it's their own side.
because we need open borders for Israel. It's disgusting that they are so racist
This is a very underrated post.
Southwestern Iowa, for one. Why would it flip blue now?
Isn't dems taking the house kinda expected though? Midterms usually go to the opposition and every single democrat is stoked to hurt Drumpf.
He was right. He gave Trump I think a 20% chance, based on the chance of Trump winning slim victories in the Northern Midwest, which happened. 20% happens 1/5 times.
That's the great thing about probabilistic projections isn't it? You can never be wrong.
Wow that is some John Madden level commentary
Nate's a lolcow for the right
Look at this fake fucking smile there.
Only the mouth is smiling but the eyes are not, they are emotionless. Classic tell that this guy is stressed as fuck and not confident of what he is saying at all.
He's lying.
He's already hedged this time.
He said that the GOP winning both houses of congress was "easily possible" or something.
Not that lefties listen when the news isn't 100% in-line with talking points (they'll be the ones looking like idiots).
>That's the great thing about probabilistic projections isn't it? You can never be wrong.
So why is Jow Forums so mad at Nate Silver if he can't be wrong? Might the real answer be hemorrhoids?
He will pretend nothing happened as usual
>and would only win if everything aligned well.
"Aligning well" in this case meaning "all the polls were wrong".
The fact that you people made excuses rather than fixing the polling system is why you're done tomorrow.
Have fun.
What are you talking about? It's not like elections are completely random.
What they base their statistic on is the uncertainty of the polling results, how likely it is that you can extrapolate the "who do you plan to vote for?" from a thousand people onto 300 million people.
..and how much they are in touch with the shy-tory effect, that their sample represent the population etc.
It's not like the election outcome would have been any different if they took a re-election the next day.
It's funny watching his slow and gradual demoralization
His orbicularis oculi pars orbitalis muscles know the wave will be red, his mouth prays it's going to be blue but deep down knows the truth
Republican senate, Dem House
Change my mind
Good point, it looks like he's trying to hold back explosive sharts.
>hurr durr they both have a chance to win!
He is an idiot that is just trying to save face now
>mad
Why do you think anybody's mad that our own side won? How many levels of spin are you on?
>Here's how Bernie can still win
he looks like an idiot every day
betting heads or tails won't change that
He was right in 2016. He predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote and since it's incredibly rare for a nominee to lose the popular vote but still win the election they predicted that Trump would lose.
He's just a non-committal bitch. He can only say dems are winning or he'll get called an alt-right facist, so when shit is close or leaning reps he says nothing.
>1 post by this id
>but still win the election they predicted that Trump would lose.
No. Nate's model gives percentage likelihoods of certain outcomes based on metapolling and large-data projections from these sets. You completely fail to understand how his method works. Seefor an example.
>establish self as prophetic predictor of sports and elections
>use reputation to mislead public
>add a few last minute disclaimers to save his reputation while still misleading public
>Midterms usually go to the opposition
No they don’t.
Midterms go to republicans because democrats modern demographics don’t vote in midterms because there is no celebrity president candidate to drag youth and minorities to polls. Republicans just happened to be opposition recently under Obama
I still remember when he said there was no way the cubs were winning the world series and then they did, and then days later trump got elected. he mustve had massive identity crisis after that
Is that fucking 2012? Nobody disputes Nate's 2012 prediction you absolute retard. Did Trump lose Ohio and Pennsylvania?
God dammit I can't wait for tomorrow night
Finally someone said it. That's why Democrats are spending record amounts of money to try shift their base to the polls.
Minorities are not real Americans and do understand how the democratic process works, so compared to real Americans they seldom turn up to the polls in large enough numbers.
>HE WAS RIGHT REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Cute thread.
>Nate Silver says anyone could win
Midterms cancelled confirmed.
They can easily be verified.
Group together all the states with a 90-100% chance. They should have been right about 95% of the time.
Group together all the states with a 80-90% chance. They should have been right about 85% of the time.
Etc.
Etc.
Do this over multiple years. Nate's models hold up perfectly well.
The best part about ((( HIM ))) is that he was wrong over 9 times about Trump.
He started hating on him the second he announced his run. He said Trump was a fake candidate that wouldn't get any votes and gave a whole bunch of "data points".
He called him a troll.
He said the trump campaign was doomed and gave some fake data.
He said Trump was winning in polls, but he was going to lose.
He told everyone to stop freaking out about Trump being up in polls.
He said Trump was not going to win in Iowa.
He's always been wrong, people just didn't give a shit until it impacted them.
He did that in 2016 and caught hell for it.
But the polls were closing tightly for Trump by this time in 2016.
Today, they are closing for Democrats not only in the House but ALSO THE SENATE
Is there a more Jewish field of mathematics than statistics?
Dem Senate, Dem House
Red states have been toss up to lean Dem in several consistently and already appointed Dems in good Republican wave years.
Midterms are backlashes against majorities historically, since we have the majority it is our turn to lose it and that is exactly what willl happen tomorrow.
As far as I can tell, we're slightly behind in early voting in Florida.
Always good for a laugh
It's less probable that the reps win. But if they do win, then that just means the less probable event happened. Hi im nate silver.
The problem is that his claims can't be falsified. Unless you could live in multiple timelines yourself and verify it all you see is one instance. He can't really be right or wrong in any verifiable sense because no one can tell me what him being wrong even looks like. You can't say he's wrong if something he gives a 20% chance of happening to happens because 20% chances aren't even that uncommon. There's literally no value to the general public in this pseudo-science. It's fodder for the media and propagandists.
It was obvious from the start, the large states were even more rabidly democratic in this election, every single poll gave a larger margin to dems.
>Second Time
Oh user
He already looks like an idiot. And a pedophile fag
this will never be not funny
This guy is a motherfucking moron.
>famous for predicting the most obvious election ever
>consistent failure in everything else
he's bound be right eventually, but i don't feel like it'll be redemption so much as blind luck
This boomer's analysis of the polls was completely right in 2016. He was a good follow on election night, he called Broward counties vote total not being enough to take Florida before the coastal votes came in. He sucks at all other analysis because he's a civcuck boomer but he's good at elections.
That's fine. Democrats traditionally win early voting and republicans show up on election day. It being close or slightly democratic EV is a win for republicans the same thing happened in 2016.
He's always right, except when math is broken.
How do these people make so much money? Like who pays nate silver? Who pays NBC to fund all their shit?
Always wondered. There are so many clowns that are paid so much to do literally nothing and produce nothing but propaganda nobody watches. where the fuck do they get all their money from
Look every election cycle there is some guy or outfit that predicts everything right, then all the npcs think he is some kind of math seer. That was Nate in 2012.
He hasn’t bpdone shit sense
>he chooses the predictions Nate was revising on Election Day
Nate had Hillary at or about a 90% chance to win the entire week before the election AND he predicted the Democrats would take the House and the Senate. He was simple the LEAST WRONG.
L E A S T
E
A
S
T
W R O N G
R
O
N
G
Who says he makes a lot of money?
>Nate ________
Give me your best, Jow Forums.
You mean Wednesday morning.
Do you see his espn owned jew website saying republicans lose midterms? He is a fucking bought hack
>ignores all early voting which normally favors Democrats but is now favoring Republicans by up to or over 10% in key battleground races
What did he mean by this?
his whole existence is flawed...
HIS math is dead. his whole existence is flawed.
Bill is a fucking drug. The eternal optimist. I check his Twitter every other hour to see how Republicans are going to win. Pretty amazing guy actually
he gets me closer to god.......
Fucking hell how embarrassing, is he really this stupid? It almost seems like he's paid opposition.
Nate "poll killer" (((Silver)))
He's going to have to change his name to Nate Lithium after the breakdown he has when he's shown to be a total idiot AGAIN.
If you understand stats, you could have two very probable tests, one for each possibility. Yeah, part of it is you not understanding where he's coming from due to technical knowledge, but a great deal of it is that he's autistic and should shut the fuck up when he can't give an explanation the average person can digest.
>one in ten is wrong
This. Bill is an out of touch boomer in so many ways but he was calling Trump's victory a stone cold lock over a year before the elections in 2016. He was somehow able to see through all the bullshit when boomers are so easily tricked in other ways, I totally respect him for never ever wavering in support of Trump and knowing he would win.
This just isn’t true. You can’t falsify one claim but if he has a pattern of being wrong he sure as hell is proven false then.
Out of anyone prediction elections you will not be able to come up with another person who has a better track record.
There is an even easier explanation which doesn’t even require one to be a statistical wunderkind, Nate’s models are broken and based on flawed data and he won’t admit it.
Not just wrong, extremely wrong, as was his prediction that the Democrats would take the House and Senate in 2016. He is just a shill who massages numbers until they look good to his media friends.
But I have to give him some credit: he was the LEAST WRONG!
L E A S T
E
A
S
T
W R O N G
R
O
N
G
He utterly failed in 2016 and was so far off that random chance was a better predictor.
If Democrats are unsuccessful in winning the house; here would be your top 5 losers should that happen:
1.) Nate Silver will be out of the forecast business. Failed predictions on two paramount election cycles is not survivable.
2.) Nancy Pelosi. She will be challenged for house minority leader and lose to a further left candidate.
3.) Chuck Schumer. Depends on how many seats lost. If Republicans increase their majority to 57+ seats, I would think the Dems would force him out citing the botched Kavanaugh strat as having undermined the midterm result.
4.) Big DEM Donors. Spent big money, got little R.O.I. Talk about people being pissed.
5.) Hillary Clinton. There were talks of her being a 2020 candidate. I think that vanishes if the house is lost. Democrats are losers and they are tired of losing. They want to win and they will see the current Democrat party as being run by the old order. Ocasio-Cortez is a stooge but the Dems would rather lurch left and clean house than lose their third election cycle in a row.
No, he's not. Right now on his website he's calling a 1 in 8 chance for a Red House.
Idiot.
Actually real numbers show a landslide for Republicans. Like a upsetting landslide that should shut the fucking democrats up for a long time, they will try and claim minority status the democrats numbers will be so bad.
you're an idiot. the model he used was state-by-state, and understood how the concept of electoral votes. also, it's by no means incredibly rare for someone to lose the popular vote and win the presidency. it has happened like 9% of the time, and happened as recently as 2000 with bush.
>but if he has a pattern of being wrong
Define wrong in this context because I bet you can't. You can't prove whether his model is valid or not because it isn't a predictive model. This kind of analysis could work in the medical field because there are repeated instances of the same disease but elections are different enough every time, demographics change, the scale is completely different. The domain is simply too complex.
>Alaska is light red
Is that...is that right?
Last night he came out and said that it was “extremely possible” that the R’s keep the House, and that it was also “extremely possible” that the Democrats will take it.
He is walking back.
This.