7 ms·

Nate actually gave Trump a reasonable chance of winning (I want to say 20%?) which if you understand how probability works doesn't really hurt his credibility.

Nate actually gave Trump a reasonable chance of winning (I want to say 20%?) which if you understand how probability works doesn't really hurt his credibility. 20% chances happen all the time. The people who really took the hit were orgs like NYT who gave Hillary like a 99% win probability on the day before the election.

sciurus 6y ago
29% chance, actually. Washington Post had a piece that mentioned this today. "On Election Day that year, FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gave Trump a 29 percent chance of winning. This was a better likelihood than was reflected for Trump in a number of other forecasts, though it still amounted to just under a 1-in-3 chance he would win. The site’s Nate Silver wrote that there was a 1-in-10 chance that Trump would lose the popular vote and win an electoral college majority, which is of course what happened." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/12/how-think-about-trumps-chances-winning-reelection/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/12/how-think...
sien 6y ago
The contrast between the way sport win loss percentages are dealt with, where 10% chances happen 1/10 times so that you get used to it and the way that people take politics predictions is dramatic. No doubt politics is harder, but people need to get calmer about these things. Prediction with 70% confidence and the other side winning is not wrong.
Retric 6y ago
Right before the election he actually called it a much closer race than most polls suggested. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nate-silver-predicts-close-2016-presidential-race/story?id=43329272 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nate-silver-predicts-close-2... Number wise it 28.6% Trump wins which is an edge, but not a huge one. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ The real issue with these forecasts is so few elections happen that you can’t actually tell much about how accurate the predictions are.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Trump did not have a 28.6% chance of winning at all. The number was simply false because the underlying polls were fundamentally skewed in multiple states.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Nobody trusts polls as completely accurate, predictions are always fudged to take into account such things. Now, Trump had a very healthy margin in the electoral college which might make it seem like an easy prediction, but he only hit 46.1% of the popular vote. Hillary on the other hand only hit 48.2% which shows 5.7% of the population was willing to go 3rd party for whatever reason. In the end it’s never a single issue, Hillary supporters stayed home on Election Day in part because she was predicated to win. That’s the kind of issue that makes predictions so difficult. It’s rarely a question of undecided voters, but rather who is willing to show up to vote. Something as simple as a little rain can swing elections.
    - 0xy 6y ago
      That's not supported by the data. Hillary was significantly less popular among black voters than Obama. In fact, if black voters had an identical turnout in 2016 than in 2012 Trump would've lost. It's easy to see why given her history, too. She has a history of pretty racist remarks and her husband spearheaded the infamously racist Crime Bill.
      - Retric 6y ago
        What’s not supported? Those are the actual results of the election. Also, 2012 and 2008 elections both had under 2% voting 3rd party which is more normal.
  - syspec 6y ago
    But he did. Specifically according to Nate silver on Election Day in 2016.
panarky 6y ago
For 2020, the current probability is 14% https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

sciurus 6y ago

29% chance, actually. Washington Post had a piece that mentioned this today. "On Election Day that year, FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gave Trump a 29 percent chance of winning. This was a better likelihood than was reflected for Trump in a number of other forecasts, though it still amounted to just under a 1-in-3 chance he would win. The site’s Nate Silver wrote that there was a 1-in-10 chance that Trump would lose the popular vote and win an electoral college majority, which is of course what happened." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/12/how-think-about-trumps-chances-winning-reelection/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/12/how-think...

sien 6y ago

The contrast between the way sport win loss percentages are dealt with, where 10% chances happen 1/10 times so that you get used to it and the way that people take politics predictions is dramatic. No doubt politics is harder, but people need to get calmer about these things. Prediction with 70% confidence and the other side winning is not wrong.

Retric 6y ago

Right before the election he actually called it a much closer race than most polls suggested. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nate-silver-predicts-close-2016-presidential-race/story?id=43329272 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nate-silver-predicts-close-2... Number wise it 28.6% Trump wins which is an edge, but not a huge one. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ The real issue with these forecasts is so few elections happen that you can’t actually tell much about how accurate the predictions are.

0xy 6y ago
Trump did not have a 28.6% chance of winning at all. The number was simply false because the underlying polls were fundamentally skewed in multiple states.
- Retric 6y ago
  Nobody trusts polls as completely accurate, predictions are always fudged to take into account such things. Now, Trump had a very healthy margin in the electoral college which might make it seem like an easy prediction, but he only hit 46.1% of the popular vote. Hillary on the other hand only hit 48.2% which shows 5.7% of the population was willing to go 3rd party for whatever reason. In the end it’s never a single issue, Hillary supporters stayed home on Election Day in part because she was predicated to win. That’s the kind of issue that makes predictions so difficult. It’s rarely a question of undecided voters, but rather who is willing to show up to vote. Something as simple as a little rain can swing elections.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    That's not supported by the data. Hillary was significantly less popular among black voters than Obama. In fact, if black voters had an identical turnout in 2016 than in 2012 Trump would've lost. It's easy to see why given her history, too. She has a history of pretty racist remarks and her husband spearheaded the infamously racist Crime Bill.
    - Retric 6y ago
      What’s not supported? Those are the actual results of the election. Also, 2012 and 2008 elections both had under 2% voting 3rd party which is more normal.
- syspec 6y ago
  But he did. Specifically according to Nate silver on Election Day in 2016.

panarky 6y ago

For 2020, the current probability is 14% https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/