the equation. So in the end, the more Dems that get out and vote the less chance of them getting away with another crime.

to grasp. He created a probabilistic model based upon polling, fundamental data, historical trends, etc. It gave Trump about a 29% chance of winning. That's roughly 3 in 10. That means for every 10 races run under similar circumstances, not only could Trump have won three of them, he should have won three of them. We just happened to catch one of those three. That's how probability works. Improbable outcomes are not, by definition, impossible. They happen. They simply happen less frequently than more probable outcomes. Whenever an underdog upsets a favorite (as Purdue did with Ohio State last night) it doesn't mean the odds were "wrong." It means the underdog overcame the odds.

Dems now have about 6 chances in 7 to win the House, and 1 chance in 5 to win the Senate. It's important for people who don't have a strong grasp of probability to understand that this still means that Dems can very well win the Senate (however improbable) and lose the House (even more improbable). It's not about Silver being right or wrong. It's about what the data show as the most probable outcomes amongst known possibilities.

He polls the polls.. And came up with a number with a % attached to it.

Perhaps you should refresh yourself with his Nov 6th prediction.

Your comment "We just happened to catch one of those three?'
Sounds like your a P.R. job!

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

He uses others' polls in his analysis. That's it. And polls aren't the only metrics he incorporates, though they carry the most weight. And I wrote that he gave Trump approximately 3 chances in 10 (that's 30%). You linked his final projection, which gave Trump a 28.6% chance of winning. I'm not sure what you're disputing.

I think my post went over your head.

But yet he came up with a number.... 3 chances out of 10! that was his prediction! Yes it was based on polls he had nothing do to with..But we were counting on his past predictions based on his polling from other poles .

Perhaps he used the wrong polls.. Understandable..but the fact that is.. He chose the wrong polls to base his final outcome on .. You can not defend that.. Just accept the fact.

Nate Silver's analysis of 2016 polls was wrong...

I'm more frightened of Russian interference and voter suppression. We really don't know the extent of either in 2016 and sinve the GOP benefited and is in power, NOTHING has been done to fix these problems. NOTHING!

We can only hope Mueller comes up with something!

They predicted a close race and Hillary's lead was never outside the margin of error.

As for Nate Silver, he thought Hillary was more likely to win than not (didn't everyone, even Rump?) but he didn't think it was impossible for her to lose (as many did). He was excoriated for the Very Idea before the election, iirc, as was Michael Moore. People who sleep on a warning don't deserve one I think.

That's it.