2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNate Silver at 538 said Bernie's chance of winning MI was <1%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/Discuss!
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)Ford_Prefect
(7,876 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)This is what happens when you don't leave the bubble to look at what has changed outside of it.
Ford_Prefect
(7,876 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It's a total fraud. Any one of us could do what they do just by looking at the internet and making a website about our predictions.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)his reputation.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)This little statistical prediction game is boring.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I'll second your "sick of."
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Says a lot about how terrible the majority of polling firms are in certain types of open primaries.
538's statistical models may well have been flawed, and I'm sure they and others will be studying this primary for some time. But ultimately, it was the polls themselves that were consistently off from the final result.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)an "intuition" that Sanders might win. From the man who scoffs at gut feelings in the face of inexorable numeric truth.
He's fine, really. Very smart. But the aura of invincibility is gone from 538.
Their model went splat tonight.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)In my experience, people who don't have much or any background in things like statistics, economic modeling or financial modeling tend to be way too impressed with people who grind up a bunch of numbers and spit out something that implies a level of precision that can't possibly exist. With all the unknowns and moving parts, like what percentage of which types of voters will show up, are the polls properly accounting for independents and people without land lines and so many other issues, nobody can aggregate a bunch of polls and data and say there is a 69% chance this will happen and an 82% chance that will happen.
And then he always has the out clauses when he misses by a mile, well we missed this and that surprised us, but now we'll incorporate that into our analysis and next time we'll be right!
And then next time it will be some different issues that he didn't quite account for.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)He took the average of the state polls in 2008, took the results as his, and became famous for it. Way too many Democrats fell for it. It's quite embarrassing.
jfern
(5,204 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)so give them a break
... unless they are consistently predicting Sanders will lose and being proved wrong again and again.
pa28
(6,145 posts)The polling data on which he based this conclusion on was mostly taken before Hillary's smear campaign against Bernie's record. Maybe a spectacular rejection of her dishonesty played a factor.
I don't think it was the only factor but I think it backfired on her badly.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)The spin yesterday and today was about Bernie's "ghetto" comment at the debate on Sunday night. The press was trying to turn that into a big thing and largely ignoring Hillary's smear on Bernie about the auto bailout. Then Bernie wins and they say wait, maybe Hillary's smear really hurt her.
If Silver is such a great analyst and the Hillary smear was a problem, why didn't he pick that up and factor it into his models?
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It doesn't matter what other factors exist.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)The polls can not be relied upon to even come close anymore.
madokie
(51,076 posts)that is all
or right once, however you want to put it
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Nate, I think, is one.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Polls don't lie, and neither does Nate Silver. He's the best, and he's way smarter than every voter out there, so voters are just supposed to nod their heads when he speaks and take his pontifications as gospel.
Since Nate Silver predicted a big win for Hillary, the headlines and numbers showing a Sanders win are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You'll see. Just wait.
?
ladjf
(17,320 posts)They need to consult with Dr. Sanders. Political "cataracts" can be successfully treated.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)"We were wrong to have held him in such esteem."
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)They're missing the Indies and the Republicans and yes, we ARE winning over Republicans.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's the math. It's the math. He keeps saying that even when he uses words to draw his conclusions 'my opinion counts as an equation, I AM the math!!!'
LonePirate
(13,414 posts)Yes, he was wrong; but given how he compiles his information, there was almost no way for him to be right. He relies on polling data which was universally wrong through no fault of Nate and his team. It's the old "garbage (data) in, garbage (data) out" effect which blew up his model last night.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Models are only as accurate as the data used. When your data is faulty, conclusions are faulty. This is not your mother's/grandmother's election.