Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nate Silver Called This Election Exactly Correct

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
All the votes aren't in yet, but I don't think the percentages are going to change much

You can check out his map and compare it to the CNN actual map.
fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...
www.cnn.com...

And the swing states, he nailed them.

Colorado:
Silver - Obama 50.8% , Romney 48.3%
Current - Obama 50% , Romney 49%

Florida:
Silver - Obama 49.8% , Romney 49.8%
Current - Obama 50% , Romney 49%

Iowa
Silver - Obama 51.1% , Romney 47.9%
Current - Obama 52% , Romney 47%

New Hampshire
Silver - Obama 51.4% , Romney 47.9%
Current - Obama 52% , Romney 47%

North Carolina
Silver - Obama 48.9% , Romney 50.6%
Current - Obama 48% , Romney 51%


Now, that is pretty damn good. I know a lot of people were doubting him, but this man knows what he is doing and he absolutely NAILED this election.




posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 




We really got a closer look at Silver's ability to call close races, though, in 2010. Once again, Five Thirty Eight's Wikipedia entry will tell you that Nate Silver correctly called 34 out of the 37 Senate races that year. Technically, yes. But then again, you could have called at least 32 of them. I mean, really. Did we need Nate Silver to predict that Barbara Boxer was going to win in California or that Lincoln was going get thrown out in Arkansas? Come on. There really were only five (maybe actually four) closely contested races for the Senate in 2010: Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Alaska and Washington state (if you can even consider WA and NV close, but let's.) Do you know how many of those races Silver called correctly? Two. That's right. Out of the 5 close Senate races, Nate Silver missed the mark on 3.



That brings me to a conclusion: Nate Silver is in fact often wrong while predicting the results of statewide federal contests, and when he is, he pretty much always errs on the side of a greater Republican advantage than is actually born out by the election results. The case was the same in that one state he got wrong in 2008: he predicted McCain would win Indiana (in reality, Obama won the state) and he underestimated Obama's popular vote edge by a seemingly small one-point margin (Silver's estimate of margin: 6.1 points, actual: 7.2 points), but that's a 17% error.


Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States

Just saying......



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Nate Silver cheerleader exactly right for an exactly wrong agenda.

"very classy phone call from mitt romney."

have fun with your grid lock fool HAHAHAHHAHAHA



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
B B B B B B But he works for the NY TIMES!

He's a marxist and he cooked the numbers to favor Obama!!

pfft


Nate Silver just goes by what the numbers tell him.

While all of the pundits on TV went by their "gut feelings", Nate Silver used Math and Facts

Math and Facts are never wrong
edit on 11/7/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Yes, Math always wins over "unskewing" polls based off of feelings.


On the other end of the spectrum, Dick Morris, who was predicting a Romney landslide, should be banned from speaking every again.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I'm wondering how many pundits who have been bashing Nate Silver and his methodology is going to own up and apologize or at least admit he was spot on.

To me, it is absolutely amazing how well he called the swing states down to the percentage.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Nate Silver used Math and Facts



Everyone knows that "math and facts" have a far left, liberal bias!!



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
I'm wondering how many pundits who have been bashing Nate Silver and his methodology is going to own up and apologize or at least admit he was spot on.

To me, it is absolutely amazing how well he called the swing states down to the percentage.


ZERO...That is how many will admit they were wrong about Silver. He was attacked ferociously by the right wing for doing math. What's our problem with the Taliban again?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Yes he did.

The House's plan of blocking the recovery in an attempt to point @ Obama has failed. He is here for another 4 years.

Romney supporters have been screaming about loving the country throughout the election. I agree with that sentiment. We all love America. That said, the House needs to stop with the games and the begin finally to work with the president. OK we get it. You don't like him. We get it. Facts are though, that the American people believe in his plan and if you don't work with him, you're essentially disowning the American people and you are only concerned with proptecting your tax breaks. This is what is hurting right now. Not birther stuff, not Socialist stuff. Not propaganda threads. Not Benghazi.

What hurts us all is the lack of compromise within our government. Folding arms and stomping doesn't help us. Please, Mr. Boehner, please understand that moving forward requires you putting your party away for a moment (like the people have), and working with the man who is in the White House.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I was counting on it.
It was scary though with all of the other voices out there putting up crazy stats....



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Just to remind folks...since the far right will likely pretend they said no such things about Nate.,..



Which may be why the attacks on Mr. Silver have heated up.

The National Review, noting that Mr. Silver said in 2008 that he supported Mr. Obama, ran a piece suggesting he was a mere cheerleader this time around.

Tim Stanley, a British-born historian and biographer of Pat Buchanan, wrote a blog post today for The Telegraph mocking the way Mr. Silver’s model applies different weights to the various polls it aggregates, and also for being as interested in business and sports as he is in politics. “Nate’s success shows that Democrats are panicking. Losing the war of ideas, they’re resorting to bad maths,” he charges.

At the margins, Mr. Silver is even being attacked because of his sexual orientation. (He is gay.)

Last week, a conservative commentator wrote that, “Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program.”

Over the weekend, Mr. Silver responded on Twitter, saying the attack was “pretty awesome,” because its argument boiled down to this: “Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide!”

www.theglobeandmail.com...





new topics




 
6

log in

join