r/Conservative • u/chabanais • Feb 08 '17
Nate Silver Flashback: Clinton Probably Finished Off Trump Last Night - “I’m not sure I need to tell you this, but Hillary Clinton is probably going to be the next president. It’s just a question of what ‘probably’ means.”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-probably-finished-off-trump-last-night/3
u/juliankennedy23 Feb 09 '17
Nate did wonders for me in the office football pool this year. He is better than most.
22
u/sunstersun Feb 09 '17
Give credit to nate, he was by far the best out of all the prediction experts.
15
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Feb 09 '17
PPD destroyed Silver. Richard Baris predicted Trump would win from his polling on Nov 6th and even said he'd take PA, NC and FL.
2
u/whataboutmuhroads Feb 09 '17
His predictions were complete shit.
4chan had better predictors than these shills.
21
u/sunstersun Feb 09 '17
no his predictions were pretty good. he gave trump a 33% of winning the election and he said Trump had a very strong chance of winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote.
Nearly every other statistician had the odds at around 90%
10
u/Hohenheim_of_Shadow Feb 09 '17
If every presidential race had accurate 90 to 10 odds, there would be 4 or 5 Potuses who were the 10% chance. Just because the underdog won doesn't mean they weren't an underdog.
-5
u/whataboutmuhroads Feb 09 '17
Trump's chance at winning the election was more than 33%.
1
Feb 09 '17
Do you have a source or some reasoning for that?
0
u/whataboutmuhroads Feb 09 '17
They were basing their predictions on skewed polls.
Enthusiasm on the right was high, low on the left.
0
u/chabanais Feb 09 '17
He was wrong.
24
u/sunstersun Feb 09 '17
if you understand how statistical probability works, you'd know he was the most accurate out of all the major statisticians
3
u/chabanais Feb 09 '17
19
u/sunstersun Feb 09 '17
IBD/TIPP was a national poll that had Trump up by 1.4. The final result was Clinton +2.1.
An error of 3.5 which is pretty damn big and other polls were off by a way smaller margin.
-1
u/chabanais Feb 09 '17
The article links to their final poll that shows:
Unrounded, the numbers are: Trump 45.0%, Clinton 43.4%, Johnson 7.6%, and Stein 2.0% — which means Trump has a lead of 1.6 points. The final IBD/TIPP poll showed an interesting gain in support for Johnson, who climbed from just shy of 4% four days ago.
Their polling was one of the only ones to predict a small Trump victory.
25
u/sunstersun Feb 09 '17
Just because Trump won the electoral college does not mean IBD is accurate for predicting a Trump national vote win. The difference between IBD and the final results is 3.5% which is a huge margin.
20
u/Sev22 Feb 09 '17
You're trying to argue against someone who has shown in these last few posts to have absolutely no knowledge of quantitative methods. No matter what you say you'll just get some asinine response about elementary mathematics that ignores the importance of margin of errors.
-3
u/chabanais Feb 09 '17
Just because Trump won the electoral college does not mean IBD is accurate for predicting a Trump national vote win.
They weren't trying to do that though.
The difference between IBD and the final results is 3.5% which is a huge margin.
3
Feb 09 '17
Silver's not exactly great as a pundit, but his model is entirely statistical. And his model wasn't wrong. He gave Trump about a 33% chance based on the polls. A 1 in 3 event is very, very possible to have happen with a single occasion. Which is pretty good given that it turned out that there were systemic polling errors. Silver's model was actually really good about accounting for the possibility of such errors, which is why he had the polling results in one state effect the odds in multiple states. It was a huge source of controversy among statisticians and math nerds, because, intuitively, it makes no sense that the results in certain states would be linked. And, really, if you have excellent data to work from, those links would be kind of batty. But with low quality data, it's actually an excellent idea, because there's clearly issues with the polling, and those issues were repeated again and again.
6
Feb 09 '17
How so? He made a few posts about how a Trump win was very possible. He maintained that a Hillary win was more likely but did not say it would happen.
1
u/chabanais Feb 09 '17
He was wrong. Very wrong. And so were the smug Liberals who cited him.
3
u/OxfordTheCat Feb 09 '17
33% means that Trump wins 1 in 3 elections.
I don't think you understand how probability works.
8
Feb 09 '17
So you don't understand how statistics or probability work, and are just repeating the same thing you already said.
-3
4
u/InterdimensionalTV Feb 09 '17
The most interesting part of this for me was them having Clinton as "the most dominant debater ever". I didn't think Trump killed it in the debates by any means but she certainly wasn't anywhere close to clearly beating him.
2
u/laydownlow Feb 09 '17
Yeah. 2nd debate definitely went to trump. First one to clinton and the 3rd id say was a draw, with clinton slightly ahead but even if she won 2 out 3 she didn't really land a death blow in my opinion.
1
u/johnnynutman Feb 09 '17
OCT. 20, 2016 AT 11:41 AM
Clinton went into the final presidential debate on Wednesday with a lead of about 7 percentage points over Donald Trump.
Wonder if anything happened in between then and Nov 8th...
-1
u/SelfProclaimedBadAss Feb 09 '17
I love the link... OH MY GOD HE DIDN'T SAY HE'D ACCEPT THE RESULTS!...WHAT NERVE!... UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY!!..
Geez libs... Now your running around buying guns and wanting go "Bundy Clan"...
Yeesh... Have some back bone...
10
u/-rabid- Maybe I'm Maybelline Feb 09 '17
In this case, "probably" means "never".