Ed FiveThirtyEight GE Forecast

[Fudbucker]

His model is based on polls not his gut feeling and it has a proven track record.

Except when he gets it wrong, like Bernie winning Michigan.


"If Bernie Sanders were to defeat Hillary Clinton in Michigan’s Democratic primary, it would be “among the greatest polling errors in primary history,” our editor in chief, Nate Silver, wrote Tuesday evening when results started to come in. Sanders pulled it off, and now we’re left wondering how it happened. How did Sanders win by 1.5 percentage points when our polling average showed Clinton ahead by 21 points and our forecasts showed that Sanders had less than a 1 percent chance of winning?"

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I was most relieved by the way the rust belt looked. If trump has an electoral path, it depends on winning the rust belt. Florida isn't going his way and he isn't going to flip enough New Hampshires or Colorados to matter.

At this point, we can't even say with certainty who the candidates will be, let alone the winner. Bernie Sanders is convinced that he's going to be the nominee, and if Crooked Hillary is indicted he probably will be.

 

[Tony Stark]

Except when he gets it wrong, like Bernie winning Michigan.


"If Bernie Sanders were to defeat Hillary Clinton in Michigan’s Democratic primary, it would be “among the greatest polling errors in primary history,” our editor in chief, Nate Silver, wrote Tuesday evening when results started to come in. Sanders pulled it off, and now we’re left wondering how it happened. How did Sanders win by 1.5 percentage points when our polling average showed Clinton ahead by 21 points and our forecasts showed that Sanders had less than a 1 percent chance of winning?"

It was pollsters in Michigan that screwed things up. And that was an outlier. Polls, in the aggregate, are very accurate predictors.

 

[Tony Stark]

At this point, we can't even say with certainty who the candidates will be, let alone the winner. Bernie Sanders is convinced that he's going to be the nominee, and if Crooked Hillary is indicted he probably will be.

Nah Bernie is not delusional enough to believe that he is going to be the nominee.

It doesn’t appear that I’m going to be the nominee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oesnt-appear-that-im-going-to-be-the-nominee/

But keep up with your ridiculous fantasy about Hillary being indicted. Much funnier for me that way.

 

[phiwum]

How people bet is totally based on an objective measure of odds. What else would it be based on? You gave me 100-1 odds Clinton would be indicted, so I took the bet.

Surely, this is a measure of your subjective view regarding the likelihood of indictment.

And if we, like the bookies, measure lots and lots of such subjective views, I guess we would be measuring something like the common subjective view. It is how bettors think things will go. It's not the same thing as a survey of how people might vote.

 

[Fudbucker]

It was pollsters in Michigan that screwed things up. And that was an outlier. Polls, in the aggregate, are very accurate predictors.

Nate Silver was an outlier? Please. The polls obviously got it wrong. It happens. Dewey defeats Truman.

The current crop of polls has Clinton winning by a six point margin. That's my gut feeling as well. I think she'll win and it will be on par with Obama vs. McCain.

But I'm not going to pretend that because Nate Silver says she has an 80% chance she actually has an 80% chance.

 

[Fudbucker]

Surely, this is a measure of your subjective view regarding the likelihood of indictment.

And if we, like the bookies, measure lots and lots of such subjective views, I guess we would be measuring something like the common subjective view. It is how bettors think things will go. It's not the same thing as a survey of how people might vote.

It's a combination of polling data and your own gut feeling. At least that's how it was for me when I made a few small-scale bets.

 

[Tony Stark]

Nate Silver was an outlier? Please. The polls obviously got it wrong. It happens. Dewey defeats Truman.

The current crop of polls has Clinton winning by a six point margin. That's my gut feeling as well. I think she'll win and it will be on par with Obama vs. McCain.

But I'm not going to pretend that because Nate Silver says she has an 80% chance she actually has an 80% chance.

No, the pollsters screwing things up so badly in Michigan was an outlier. Polls are on aggregate very accurate predictors. That's why Silver was able to accurately predict all 50 states in 2012.

And if the polls hold, and Hillary still has a 6-7 point advantage in them on election day, her odds will be way better than 80%. Like 95%+.

 

[BStrong]

Why are you conflating polls with betting odds? The betting odds were a reflection of how people were betting not any kind of objective measure of the odds. The polls showed that it would be close. Lots of them even showed that leave would win.

And unfortunately for Trump, there are significantly fewer white people in the US than there are in the UK. If the demographics of the US was similar to that of the UK, I would be worried. But they are not.

I believe Hillary is a shoo-in, but there's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Every media outlet in California picked Bradley to win and the concurrent handgun ban ballot proposition (Prop 15) to win in a landslide.

Bradley lost, Prop 15 lost 2 to 1.

 

[DavidJames]

Why are you conflating polls with betting odds?

NVM

 

[sunmaster14]

Nate Silver (and lots of other people) didn't believe that GOP primary voters would actually be stupid enough to pick Trump. Turns out that GOP primary voters are that stupid. I for one am not surprised. I knew they are stupid.

Silver's election forecast on the other hand is based on numbers and a proven model. His model correctly predicted the outcome of all 50 states in 2012.

Trump is the heavy underdog. And his odds will only get smaller the closer we get to the election. It would not be surprising at all if they fall to less than 1% by election day.

Sucks for you people.

It doesn't seem like you understand how probability works. If Hillary has an 80.6% chance of winning, then Trump has a 19.4% chance of winning, which is certainly substantial. For example, there is a 19.4% that, on election day, Trump will have a 100% chance of winning. Furthermore, there is a much higher probability that, some time in the next few months, Trump will have a much higher probability of winning. It's entirely possible that he has a 38% probability (which is not small) of inching over the 50% mark in terms of winning probability. Another way of putting it is that there is a 38% probability that at some point in the next 4 months, you will be crapping your pants.

Personally, I think Trump has about a 40% chance of winning, and so far my record on Trump is much better than Nate Silver's. When he claimed that Trump had less than a 5% chance of winning the nomination (which was in late fall), I pointed out that that was ridiculous.

 

[sunmaster14]

No, the pollsters screwing things up so badly in Michigan was an outlier. Polls are on aggregate very accurate predictors. That's why Silver was able to accurately predict all 50 states in 2012.

And if the polls hold, and Hillary still has a 6-7 point advantage in them on election day, her odds will be way better than 80%. Like 95%+.

I think I see your problem there.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think I see your problem there.

The polls will probably get worse for the orange, racist, conman piece of garbage.

 

[Tony Stark]

It doesn't seem like you understand how probability works. If Hillary has an 80.6% chance of winning, then Trump has a 19.4% chance of winning, which is certainly substantial. For example, there is a 19.4% that, on election day, Trump will have a 100% chance of winning. Furthermore, there is a much higher probability that, some time in the next few months, Trump will have a much higher probability of winning. It's entirely possible that he has a 38% probability (which is not small) of inching over the 50% mark in terms of winning probability. Another way of putting it is that there is a 38% probability that at some point in the next 4 months, you will be crapping your pants.

Personally, I think Trump has about a 40% chance of winning, and so far my record on Trump is much better than Nate Silver's. When he claimed that Trump had less than a 5% chance of winning the nomination (which was in late fall), I pointed out that that was ridiculous.

You're just pulling numbers out of your ass just like Silver did for Trump in the primary. Silver gave Trump such a small chance because he didn't recognize how stupid Republicans are. I knew they are stupid and thus I was not surprised at all that Republican primary voters picked Trump.

Silver's mathematical model has a very good track record. It picked 99/100 of the states in the last two elections. While I bet you thought that Romney would win like all the other Republicans did, didn't you.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Remember though, professional odds-makers who wager large sums on these sorts of things, thought Remain was an 80% lock too.

"The odds have shortened on the UK voting to remain in the European Union on Thursday, as one bookie suggested a Remain victory was now 80 per cent certain.

The Remain campaign has been given a 77 per cent chance of winning by betting exchange firm Betfair, with odds of 2/7 at the time of writing."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...main-leave-brexit-winning-ahead-a7093296.html

The parallels between Brexit and Trump are obvious.

Were the brexit odds wrong?

 

[sunmaster14]

You're just pulling numbers out of your ass just like Silver did for Trump in the primary. Silver gave Trump such a small chance because he didn't recognize how stupid Republicans are. I knew they are stupid and thus I was not surprised at all that Republican primary voters picked Trump.

Silver went beyond his area of competence (which is statistics) and into the realm of punditry, where he has none (and where the state of the art is pretty crappy anyway - primarily because punditry is entertainment, not science). I pointed this out at the time. The polls were showing Trump was in the lead, and there was no reason to believe the polls were wrong, and yet Silver insisted that they would change because of ... reasons.

Now, you are insisting the polls won't change because of ... reasons. If the election were held today, Clinton would have an 80.4% chance of winning. That's probably a reasonable estimate, although I think the polls are probably skewed against Trump due to the Bradley effect. Just like the Brexit polls were skewed against "Leave." Thus, I think if the election were held today, Clinton's chances would be lower, although perhaps not a whole lot lower.

Regardless, the election is not being held today. Which sucks for you I guess. The election won't be held for 4 months, and a lot will happen in 4 months. Trump could actually start acting like a politician instead of a lunatic. He could choose a competent VP and some competent advisers. More bad news about Hillary's lawbreaking could come out. More terrorist attacks could hit (which would certainly redound to Trump's winning chances). In fact, most liberals probably think ISIS wants Trump to win. If so, wouldn't thy be trying their hardest to influence the election with some well-timed terrorist attacks? Personally, I don't think ISIS gives a crap about the Presidential election, but I'm looking at things from your perspective. Do you think all of that adds up to a <20% of Trump winning? I don't, but even so, 20% probability events happen reasonably frequently. About 1 out of 5 times, in my experience.

Silver's mathematical model has a very good track record. It picked 99/100 of the states in the last two elections. While I bet you thought that Romney would win like all the other Republicans did, didn't you.

I thought Romney was going to lose. Until Benghazi happened. And then after seeing the media reaction to Benghazi, I was sure Romney was going to lose. It's hard to win elections when the media is rooting for your opponent.

 

[xjx388]

His model is based on polls not his gut feeling and it has a proven track record.

I would say that Nate Silver is making an educated bet using what he thinks is the best data and he's usually pretty close. However, there is no denying that his selection of criteria for his model is completely subjective. To extend the gambling analogy, the Daily Fantasy Sports bettors have a pretty objective method for picking their teams but their models cannot possibly account for all variables; injuries, flukes, exceptional play, etc.

 

[wareyin]

I thought Romney was going to lose. Until Benghazi happened. And then after seeing the media reaction to Benghazi, I was sure Romney was going to lose. It's hard to win elections when the media is rooting for your opponent reporting accurately rather than promoting the false Republican narrative.

ftfy

 

[johnny karate]

Personally, I think Trump has about a 40% chance of winning...

That's just about the perfect number for you to have pulled out of your ass. If Trump wins, it's high enough for you to claim victory. If Trump loses, it's low enough for you to save face.

...and so far my record on Trump is much better than Nate Silver's.

You're not competing against Nate Silver, you're competing against a proven statistical model.

 

[Tony Stark]

Silver went beyond his area of competence (which is statistics) and into the realm of punditry, where he has none (and where the state of the art is pretty crappy anyway - primarily because punditry is entertainment, not science). I pointed this out at the time. The polls were showing Trump was in the lead, and there was no reason to believe the polls were wrong, and yet Silver insisted that they would change because of ... reasons.

Yes, Silver was acting outside his relm of competence when he gave Trump such a small chance. But he is still a very competent statistician. And so there's is absolutely no reason to believe his model is less accurate than the number that you just pulled out of your ass.

And I already told you why Silver ignored the polls for Trump. Because he didn't believe that Republican primary voters are that stupid. He was wrong. They are.

Now, you are insisting the polls won't change because of ... reasons.

Actually, I think they are going to get worse for him. His campaign is in disarray, while Hillary's knows exactly what it is doing. Her campaign and super PAC are barely getting started on him, while he has no money to respond. President Obama is getting more and more popular and has yet to start campaigning for her (he starts next week). Bernie Sanders hasn't dropped out and endorsed her yet. Trump is sure to say lots more reprehensible and outrageous garbage. There is sure to be lots more dirt on Trump that hasn't got out yet (the Washington Post has a team of reporters led by Bob Woodward on it). The Republican convention will probably be a disaster. Trump is going to get killed in the debates by Hillary because he has no idea what he is talking about. "Leaders" in his own party will continue to throw him under the bus.

If the election were held today, Clinton would have an 80.4% chance of winning. That's probably a reasonable estimate, although I think the polls are probably skewed against Trump due to the Bradley effect. Just like the Brexit polls were skewed against "Leave." Thus, I think if the election were held today, Clinton's chances would be lower, although perhaps not a whole lot lower.

Hillary would have a way better chance than 80% it the election were held today. And "skewed polls". LOL. Reminds me of last election.

Of course, there is no comparison with the Brexit, where polls showed it a toss up with many having leave ahead. The vast majority of polls have had Hillary ahead, including literally all of them for over a month.

Regardless, the election is not being held today. Which sucks for you I guess. The election won't be held for 4 months, and a lot will happen in 4 months. Trump could actually start acting like a politician instead of a lunatic. He could choose a competent VP and some competent advisers. More bad news about Hillary's lawbreaking could come out. More terrorist attacks could hit (which would certainly redound to Trump's winning chances). In fact, most liberals probably think ISIS wants Trump to win. If so, wouldn't thy be trying their hardest to influence the election with some well-timed terrorist attacks? Personally, I don't think ISIS gives a crap about the Presidential election, but I'm looking at things from your perspective. Do you think all of that adds up to a <20% of Trump winning? I don't, but even so, 20% probability events happen reasonably frequently. About 1 out of 5 times, in my experience.

The model already factors in that things could happen to change the polls. Trump acting presidential? LMAO, he is very clearly incapable. And I don't think that more terrorist attacks would work in his favor. Orlando didn't. Maybe if Trump was a regular Republican and capable of at least pretending like he could be a good leader, but he's not.

I thought Romney was going to lose. Until Benghazi happened. And then after seeing the media reaction to Benghazi, I was sure Romney was going to lose. It's hard to win elections when the media is rooting for your opponent.

Because they didn't go along with the very obvious and disgusting attempt by the Republicans to use it for their political gain?

And surely you think that the media is against Trump even more than they were Romney? Yet you believe that Trump has a good chance while you were sure Romney would lose? LOL.