Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
1. Beat me to it
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:53 AM
Mar 2016

Hopefully, this will be the end of his exalted status as an oracle.

I would have thought his miserable performance in 2014 would have finished him off but apparently he's like a cockroach.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
2. I've said the polls plus model is completely arbitrary.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:54 AM
Mar 2016

Though to be fair the pollsters got this one wrong across the board.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
4. Yep. Which has long been my criticism of Slivers. And he has a strong record of being wrong
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 01:02 AM
Mar 2016

but being right for the right people when they win.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
8. Didn't his model predict almost every state in 2008 and 2012?
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 04:18 AM
Mar 2016

I believe it also predicted most of the Senate races as well.

To say he has a strong record of being would be a mistake.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
11. "Polls plus" is new. He's adding in endorsements.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 07:14 AM
Mar 2016

With absolutely no explanation or reasoning behind it.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
12. Averaging all of the final polls on for those races gave the same results as Nate.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:30 AM
Mar 2016

And, you fell for it.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
7. It is a record for a primary
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 04:16 AM
Mar 2016

The record was Dewey v Truman. Gallup took it in the chin and admitted it was the model. It is time for Silver to do the same. Of course I got a theory if what the hell is going on with polling since 2000 and not limited to the US either

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
9. Well, he did say that 'Hillary has a 99% to 1% of winning. Interesting numbers. The 99% DID win, so
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 04:23 AM
Mar 2016

Hillary must be his 1%. Does that make sense? Lol!

Trying to help him out here! I'm in a good mood!

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
14. Don't count on it. 538 calculates a house effect to measure a pollster's bias. 538 should turn that
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:35 AM
Mar 2016

analysis on itself

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I sincerely hope tonight ...