3 ms·

I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem as i

by kevhito 10y ago

I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem as if it is 50/50 split. Then I checked 538.com [1]: they have her at 60% chance of winning -- pretty strong lead and hardly a normal time to throw someone under the bus -- but those graphs should be terrifying team Hillary. [1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

skylan_q 10y ago
Don't use that site for any insight. Nate Silver had Trump at a "1%" chance of winning the GOP primaries. He then admitted that he got the call wrong because he really didn't have any models and was just spitballing with friends. His accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters didn't.
- jedberg 10y ago
  > His accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters didn't. Where did you hear that? I'm not doubting you I'm just interested because I've never heard this before. My understanding was that he was so accurate last time around because the election followed normal patterns and his math was just better than everyone else's gut.
- tomjakubowski 10y ago
  > he had visibility into private polling Could you elaborate? Is "private polling" the same as "internal polling," which is done by the campaigns? If so, my understanding was that the Romney camp's internal polls in 2012 turned out to be extremely inaccurate.
- jpfed 10y ago
  He did have models, and they correctly predicted Trump's victory. He chose to disregard them. Then he wrote a mea culpa article explaining his mistake, which he is unlikely to repeat.
shagie 10y ago
My preferred stats site has firmly switched to Tannenbaum (of Minix) and http://www.electoral-vote.com http://www.electoral-vote.com - 538 has felt more like horse racing for ESPN this past cycle than statistical analysis and news items.
CamperBob2 10y ago
The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency. Nate Silver has been wrong at every single juncture, as have the rest of the polls. We're off the beaten path and down the rabbit hole, and now we're staring at a trap door in a dark sub-basement that even the rabbit didn't know was there.
- int_19h 10y ago
  It also makes sense if you don't assume that GOP is a monolithic hivemind. Every politician ultimately wants to gain a position of power, and remain in it. Aligning themselves with a party lets them tap into that party's electorate, but said electorate also expects them to hold to certain opinions, and perform certain token rituals to demonstrate that - so they do that. It doesn't even matter that the long-term end result would be detrimental to the party in this case - what matters is that a GOP politician who'd publicly reject the block would lose a lot of votes in their next election. And because US only has single-member districts, not party lists, this mode of thinking dominates, and can destroy the party from the inside.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    It also makes sense if you don't assume that GOP is a monolithic hivemind. Historically, though, that's exactly what they are. Party discipline usually prevails over everything else with those guys.
- douche 10y ago
  The only person that's had a pretty good batting average on this election so far is Scott Adams - it's downright eerie the way he's called it almost since this time last year.
  - stonetear 10y ago
    Agreed, the guy is like a fortune teller.
Tycho 10y ago
60% chance is not really much different from a coin flip. Plus they might have some inside info that the public hasn't had a chance to react to yet.

by kevhito 10y ago

skylan_q 10y ago

Don't use that site for any insight. Nate Silver had Trump at a "1%" chance of winning the GOP primaries. He then admitted that he got the call wrong because he really didn't have any models and was just spitballing with friends. His accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters didn't.

jedberg 10y ago
> His accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters didn't. Where did you hear that? I'm not doubting you I'm just interested because I've never heard this before. My understanding was that he was so accurate last time around because the election followed normal patterns and his math was just better than everyone else's gut.
tomjakubowski 10y ago
> he had visibility into private polling Could you elaborate? Is "private polling" the same as "internal polling," which is done by the campaigns? If so, my understanding was that the Romney camp's internal polls in 2012 turned out to be extremely inaccurate.
jpfed 10y ago
He did have models, and they correctly predicted Trump's victory. He chose to disregard them. Then he wrote a mea culpa article explaining his mistake, which he is unlikely to repeat.

shagie 10y ago

My preferred stats site has firmly switched to Tannenbaum (of Minix) and http://www.electoral-vote.com http://www.electoral-vote.com - 538 has felt more like horse racing for ESPN this past cycle than statistical analysis and news items.

CamperBob2 10y ago

The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency. Nate Silver has been wrong at every single juncture, as have the rest of the polls. We're off the beaten path and down the rabbit hole, and now we're staring at a trap door in a dark sub-basement that even the rabbit didn't know was there.

int_19h 10y ago
It also makes sense if you don't assume that GOP is a monolithic hivemind. Every politician ultimately wants to gain a position of power, and remain in it. Aligning themselves with a party lets them tap into that party's electorate, but said electorate also expects them to hold to certain opinions, and perform certain token rituals to demonstrate that - so they do that. It doesn't even matter that the long-term end result would be detrimental to the party in this case - what matters is that a GOP politician who'd publicly reject the block would lose a lot of votes in their next election. And because US only has single-member districts, not party lists, this mode of thinking dominates, and can destroy the party from the inside.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  It also makes sense if you don't assume that GOP is a monolithic hivemind. Historically, though, that's exactly what they are. Party discipline usually prevails over everything else with those guys.
douche 10y ago
The only person that's had a pretty good batting average on this election so far is Scott Adams - it's downright eerie the way he's called it almost since this time last year.
- stonetear 10y ago
  Agreed, the guy is like a fortune teller.

Tycho 10y ago

60% chance is not really much different from a coin flip. Plus they might have some inside info that the public hasn't had a chance to react to yet.