If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   Flashback: Nate Silver gave Sharron Angle a 75 percent chance of winning   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 81
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1538 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2012 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-06 12:53:07 AM
So, to summarize, Nate Silver was right.

Or does subby have no farking clue how probability works?

/100% probability of the later
 
2012-11-06 12:57:16 AM
So ... all the Teabaggers have to brag about is when their candidates lost?

I'm OK with that.
 
2012-11-06 01:00:40 AM

dameron: So, to summarize, Nate Silver was right.


that's what I got out of it. maybe if she lost that would have been a story.
 
2012-11-06 01:01:36 AM

dameron: So, to summarize, Nate Silver was right.

Or does subby have no farking clue how probability works?

/100% probability of the later


It is worse than just Angle. I've heard 25% of the people he gave a 75% chance of winning actually lost.
 
2012-11-06 01:26:50 AM
75%
 
2012-11-06 01:50:12 AM
So Nate Silver is wrong because he is Nate Silver.

Got it.


/dnrtfa
 
2012-11-06 06:15:37 AM

dameron: So, to summarize, Nate Silver was right.

Or does subby have no farking clue how probability works?

/100% probability of the later


Done in one.
 
2012-11-06 07:02:39 AM
Thereby proving his liberal bias.
 
2012-11-06 07:14:09 AM

GAT_00: Thereby proving his liberal bias.


IIRC, pretty much all of Nates errors, both in 2008 and 2010, were the result of him overrating the GOP's chances.
 
2012-11-06 07:20:15 AM
Probability is not Prediction.
 
2012-11-06 07:22:07 AM

Bladel: Probability is not Prediction.


Yes it is. It's just prediction over a series of events, not a singular event (unless the probability is 100% or 0%).
 
2012-11-06 07:25:16 AM
Looks like he's learned his lesson well.
 
2012-11-06 07:30:14 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Looks like he's learned his lesson well.


Nevada is hard to get a good read on. 70% of the state has already voted at this point.
 
2012-11-06 08:21:11 AM
Nice lips.
 
2012-11-06 08:44:56 AM
Math is hard.
 
2012-11-06 08:45:34 AM

xanadian: Nice lips.


That's pretty much all I got out of the article too.
 
2012-11-06 08:45:55 AM

DamnYankees: Bladel: Probability is not Prediction.

Yes it is. It's just prediction over a series of events, not a singular event (unless the probability is 100% or 0%).


Good lord, talk about pedanti...

...wait, nevermind. This is still Fark. Carry on.
 
2012-11-06 08:46:49 AM
Nate Silver said I had an 83% chance of rolling a number less than six on a die. Boy did he feel stupid when I rolled that six. Idiot.
 
2012-11-06 08:47:16 AM
Nate Silver will be exposed as the fraud he really is after this election is over.
 
2012-11-06 08:48:24 AM
I'm just gonna ignore the dumb headline and article. Nate Silver gave her a 25% chance of winning. 25% chance IS A THING.

------

Am I the only one who doesn't tell his low information voter friends about Nate Silver? They'd see the 90% and think they don't have to vote. I always tell them its gonna be close but Obama is gonna win and they gotta vote.
 
JW
2012-11-06 08:49:44 AM
In other news, rolling a 1 on the die means the die is broken, because it was predicted that you were going to roll between 2 and 6.
 
2012-11-06 08:50:09 AM
www.globeequipment.com
Just keep grabbing, cons
 
2012-11-06 08:51:04 AM
I don't think statistical models could account for how terrible her campaign was in the final days.
 
2012-11-06 08:51:49 AM
With state races he also has more error because he has a much lower number of polls to analyze than Presidential races, especially when compared to a battleground state like Ohio that has been polled within an inch of its life. The less data there is, the less accurate his model is, which is why it doesn't work as well for House races.
 
2012-11-06 08:52:52 AM
This is why I don't play Deathwing, because getting caught out rolling more than 1/6 failed saves on 2+ stings. Easier just to shovel Termagants off the board.
 
2012-11-06 08:55:11 AM
So he wasn't wrong in a race with a small fraction of the data of this one? Put another way, you take all of his picks and aggregate them to determine accuracy and he is very, very accurate.
 
2012-11-06 08:55:53 AM

redmond24: I'm just gonna ignore the dumb headline and article. Nate Silver gave her a 25% chance of winning. 25% chance IS A THING


He did say 3 out of 4 chance. But he was basing it on a single poll that showed her 3 points ahead. I'm not sure how anybody can give a 3/4 chance based upon a single poll. He seemed to have better revised models this election.

Where did you get the 25% from? What that his final analysis, I see the 75% chance was from early October, now his final assessment.
 
2012-11-06 08:57:05 AM
The polls in Nevada were wrong.

The republicans are banking on the polls in all he swing states being wrong.

I don't understand why the republicans think the polls are wrong at historic levels this year, but that is what they are counting on.
 
2012-11-06 08:57:40 AM
To summarize: Jewey Jewjew was "wrong" once, so Sarah Palin is president and long live President Romney. This is totally not an article meant to get Republicans out to vote for their turd sandwich.
 
2012-11-06 08:57:48 AM
The right's insistence on continuing to attack everything that even remotely steps out of the narrative is quite disturbing. Now we're on to attacking statistical analysis and polling.

I'm assuming even more radical questioning of the election.

Imagine if Obama lost the popular vote and still won electorally. There'd be a meltdown of illegitimacy of epic proportions.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-06 09:00:14 AM

bulldg4life: The right's insistence on continuing to attack everything that even remotely steps out of the narrative is quite disturbing. Now we're on to attacking statistical analysis and polling.

I'm assuming even more radical questioning of the election.

Imagine if Obama lost the popular vote and still won electorally. There'd be a meltdown of illegitimacy of epic proportions.


oh please oh please oh please oh please. Hypocrisy in such EPIC and BIBLICAL proportions even the most dim bulbs in the US couldn't miss it. Every other post on Fark a "Sore Loserman" flashback!
 
Heb
2012-11-06 09:00:20 AM
So someone with a 25% chance of winning, won?

I'm stunned.
 
2012-11-06 09:02:46 AM

evoke: Nate Silver will be exposed as the fraud he really is after this election is over I DON'T UNDERSTAND MATH!.


FTFY
 
2012-11-06 09:03:41 AM
Sometimes you draw to an inside straight and it pays off. That doesn't mean you should toss out a pair to go for another one.
 
2012-11-06 09:04:13 AM

d23: Every other post on Fark a "Sore Loserman" flashback!


There was an article here on Fark a few weeks ago that had a tidbit in it about how, in 2004, the Dubya campaign had prepared talking points in case Kerry won the Presidency while losing the popular vote. They had prepared to question the legitimacy and try to stop the process.
 
2012-11-06 09:05:15 AM
Who is Nate Silver and why is he the Apple of the politics tab?
 
2012-11-06 09:05:27 AM
Done in one.
 
2012-11-06 09:05:36 AM
Actually, that wasn't a terribly stupid article, especially for an Examiner article. It points out an example of a flaw in the statistical modeling of human nature and then posits that there may be an analogy to be made between that particular model and the current one being used for the presidential race. I don't think it's a valid concern, but considering the rest of the weapons-grade derp being thrown at Silver by the right lately, it's at least level-headed and plausible.

That said, submitter's implied chiding suggests to me that submitter neither understands statistics nor did he or she comprehend the article.
 
2012-11-06 09:06:26 AM
On "any given Tuesday" sometimes the political underdog can "Win one for the Gipper".
 
2012-11-06 09:06:32 AM
75% of the time, it works every time.
 
2012-11-06 09:07:55 AM
I recommend that many spend an hour watching http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00yh2rc (BBC, Tails you Win), and stop with the Baby Boo Boo stuff.

It seems that people are mixing up what probability means, likely because they believe in shiat without understanding it, or worse, don't believe something because they misunderstand it.

This article is sad because the guy has no idea what he is talking about. He simply said Nate Silver was wrong, which is not correct.
 
2012-11-06 09:08:52 AM

Heb: So someone with a 25% chance of winning, won?

I'm stunned.


I more stunned that according to those math know-it-all guys, the last dude who hit the power-ball had only 0.0000005706996738% chance to hit it and he still hit it! LOSERSSS!!!!111!!!
 
2012-11-06 09:09:07 AM
If I recall correctly some of the polls were under-counting the Hispanic vote; pollsters weren't conducting surveys in Spanish.
 
2012-11-06 09:09:09 AM
Excuse me, but there's no way Nate Silver predicted a Sharron Angle win. I've been told, in no uncertain terms, he's a libby lib liberal who only predicts liberal victories. And is possibly homosexual. Must investigate further.
 
2012-11-06 09:12:17 AM

rob.d: This article is sad because the guy has no idea what he is talking about. He simply said Nate Silver was wrong, which is not correct.


No, he didn't. He's attempting to draw a comparison between a long-shot winner in 2010 and what Silver is calling a long-shot winner today. He acknowledges that at the time Silver even posited the long-shot possibility that actually did happen.

The point of the article is that he thinks Mitt Romney could beat the odds by having a grudgingly strong turnout from the conservative base the way Reid had a grudgingly strong turnout by the democratic base. It's a legitimate concern. People are not excited about Romney, but they are people who absolutely hate with an irrational passion anybody who has a (D) after their name. Romney could beat the odds if the democrats don't get turnout but the republicans do.
 
2012-11-06 09:12:59 AM

stuhayes2010: Who is Nate Silver and why is he the Apple of the politics tab?


He's a statistician. And the Republicans are butthurt because math has a liberal bias.
 
2012-11-06 09:15:46 AM
Jesus farking Christ, does no one remember the Ohio style "irregularities" in Nevada for that election? The polls were most liekly correct.
 
2012-11-06 09:16:54 AM
Some people should just never talk about anything related to math, or numbers in general.
 
2012-11-06 09:19:26 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: rob.d: This article is sad because the guy has no idea what he is talking about. He simply said Nate Silver was wrong, which is not correct.

No, he didn't. He's attempting to draw a comparison between a long-shot winner in 2010 and what Silver is calling a long-shot winner today. He acknowledges that at the time Silver even posited the long-shot possibility that actually did happen.

The point of the article is that he thinks Mitt Romney could beat the odds by having a grudgingly strong turnout from the conservative base the way Reid had a grudgingly strong turnout by the democratic base. It's a legitimate concern. People are not excited about Romney, but they are people who absolutely hate with an irrational passion anybody who has a (D) after their name. Romney could beat the odds if the democrats don't get turnout but the republicans do.


But Angle was a terrible candidate. Almost anyone but Angle could have beaten Reid.
 
2012-11-06 09:19:35 AM

stuhayes2010: Who is Nate Silver and why is he the Apple of the politics tab?


If you're connected to the internet and incapable of figuring that out for yourself, don't vote. Ever.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report