Nate Silver is a loser.

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong.

Last updated: October 29th, 2012

Step forward Nate Silver of the New York Times. Nate has been an open supporter of the President and his newspaper just endorsed Obama (although it also went for Dukakis, so it ain’t that good at picking winners). But context doesn’t matter because maths is maths and maths can’t lie – and Nate says that, according to his model, Obama has a 74.6 per cent chance of winning.

A former business and baseball analyst, Nate came to fame in 2008 when he correctly predicted the outcome in 49 of 50 states in the presidential election. Frankly, a headless chicken could have done that. It was a wave election and we all knew Virginia and North Carolina were in play. Plus Nate had access to internal Obama polls that gave him an advantage over his market rivals.Nevertheless, this success turned Nate into a star – despite his own admission that his analysis technique is not modelled exclusively for politics.

Here are some of the problems with his stats.

1. Nate isn’t very good at calling close elections. In 2010, he correctly predicted the outcome of the senate elections with the greatest leads. But in the 5 genuinely close races, he got it wrong in 3.

2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections. Historically, voters have tended to break towards challengers, and particularly Republican challengers, in the last week.

3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model. He has shown particular affection for Democrat-leaning pollsters like PPP, and this bias is evident in his use of state-wide polls.

4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.

Nate’s success shows that Democrats are panicking. Losing the war of ideas, they’re resorting to bad maths. Last night a friend posted this on Facebook: “I want Nate Silver's data made into a blanket I can cuddle up with.” Sorry, but weighted polling served up by a partisan analyst is a very false comfort.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100186850/romney-obama-nate-silver-new-york-times/

 

Any model spewing nonsense like that is dogshit.

 

Republican favorite Rasmussen couldn't.They had a lot of swing states with McCain ahead or tied that Obama won .A few examples















Rasmussen also had McCain ahead of Obama leading up to the election more then any other pollster

 

The accuracy of his(Nate Silver) November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.



In April 2009, he was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People by Time.






Of the 37 Senate seats contested in the November 2, 2010 elections, 36 were resolved by November 4, including very close outcomes in several states. Of these 36, the FiveThirtyEight model had correctly predicted the winner in 34.





In final vote tallys as of December 10, 2010, the Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the House, 8 more than the total predicted on election eve though still within the reported confidence interval




Of the 37 gubernatorial races, FiveThirtyEight correctly predicted the winner of 36. Only in Illinois, in which the Democratic candidate Pat Quinn defeated the Republican Bill Brady 46.6% to 46.1%, was the FiveThirtyEight prediction wrong.

 

Spam all you want, wigger, but any model saying Obama has a 74.6 per cent chance of winning is dogshit (which coincidentally is what you have in between your ears).

 

Say what?

 

Thanks for the tip, douchebag.

 

I disagree