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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Guy who was completely and utterly wrong in 2012 is doubting Nate Silver's predictions for 2014   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 72
    More: Dumbass, Nate Silver, "Dead Wrong", Mark Warner, New Hampshire Senate, statistical model, predictions, pundits  
•       •       •

2742 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2014 at 8:40 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-01 08:21:17 AM  
I'll bet he thinks the Washington Generals are due for a win too.
 
2014-05-01 08:25:53 AM  
I'm sure Silver's predictions will change as November draws near.

/GOP landslide
 
2014-05-01 08:26:02 AM  

nekom: I'll bet he thinks the Washington Generals are due for a win too.


www.splittinghairs.org

He's spinning the ball on his finger! Just take it! Take it! That game was fixed! They were using a freakin' ladder, for God's sake!

 
2014-05-01 08:27:43 AM  
He's doing his job. He has to keep the troops' morale up, so the contributions will flow.

The cash must flow...
 
2014-05-01 08:29:12 AM  
Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.
 
2014-05-01 08:35:06 AM  

EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.


No but past performance is a good indicator in this case.
 
2014-05-01 08:37:49 AM  
Ahhh, May. When a young man's fancy turns to unskewing polls.

Why do these guys always sound like anti-vaxxers? "Look, I know what your *science* says, but in my heart and as a Pundyblogger, I just know what's best for my beloved, special cable news liveshotflakes."
 
2014-05-01 08:40:55 AM  

EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.


nate was right at least twice. (both '08 and '12, dunno if he did '10)
 
2014-05-01 08:45:14 AM  

hubiestubert: He's doing his job. He has to keep the troops' morale up, so the contributions will flow.

The cash must flow...


Math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better.
 
2014-05-01 08:45:46 AM  

somedude210: EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.

nate was right at least twice. (both '08 and '12, dunno if he did '10)


he did the midterm. But i don't recall how well he did.
 
2014-05-01 08:47:19 AM  

EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.


It wasn't that he was "right" witht he ned number of seats.

It is that he did an excellent job with his models on every seat.

(and it was more than once).

I am not betting the house on the guy, but I do trust his models more than anybody elses.
 
2014-05-01 08:54:17 AM  

EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.


Indeed.  Sarah Palin will win the Presidency in 2014, you can take that to the bank.
 
2014-05-01 08:56:35 AM  

hubiestubert: He's doing his job. He has to keep the troops' morale up, so the contributions will flow.

The cash must flow...


He who controls the cash controls the universe.

/bless the job creator and his donations.
 
2014-05-01 08:56:57 AM  

SlothB77: I'm sure Silver's predictions will change as November draws near.

/GOP landslide


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-01 08:57:12 AM  

EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.


And then there's this guy...

lh5.googleusercontent.com

The problem is that when looking at predicative models, you have to punch your weight. This guy isn't exactly in the same weight class, or even the same league. Our Beamish Boy is a water carrier, someone folks turn to bolster narrative, not look at facts. He spins, so that folks will continue to have some hope, and with that hope, open their wallets, and continue to believe.

Cheerleaders are sometimes right when they tell folks that they'll beat the other side, but do you make bets based on the advice of cheerleaders?
 
2014-05-01 09:03:20 AM  
Polls favor the Republicans, Democrats say, "Well, the election isn't here yet, so let's work hard to turn things around."
Polls favor the Democrats, Republicans say, "The polls must be wrong! Statistics are a tool of the liberal devil!"

And that's the difference between the two parties' worldviews in a nutshell.
 
2014-05-01 09:05:33 AM  
In all seriousness, we need to seriously consider that many of these people are mentally ill. My mother, who is now on medication after years of functional insanity, recently said to me "Why didn't anyone tell me I was crazy?" And the answer was "We did. Many times. But you called us names, said we were crazy, and even was convinced the 'devil' had gotten to us."

The problem is, when you're crazy, reason and logic sound crazy to you.

With my mom, I remember the night she was convinced Jesus was going to return to earth that afternoon, and it was going to be the rapture. We weren't allowed to eat anything, she called our priest and demanded he come to our house so we could all do confession, then we sat for three hours saying rosaries and reading from Revelation. Later that night, she watched Murder She Wrote and cried, wondering if god had spared the world, or if we had been left behind. The thing was, when she's in the state of mind where four white cars happened to drive by our house and they're somehow a sign of the four horsemen or something, there's no way to convince her she's imagining this. Every bit of input goes through a lens of nuttery, even pleas from her family that she's losing it. So, that afternoon, the priest had to play along, my dad had to play along, and my sisters and I (8, 10, and 11 at the time) all were playing along.

Because if you look at it, this and the whole Rob Ford thing are perfect examples of how they refuse to acknowledge reality, and they continue to jam square pegs into round holes until a few fit. Nate Silver uses statistics, math, and every bit of evidence he can to get a good idea of what the reality of the situation is. He doesn't care if a D or and R wins, he just wants to get it right, and he'll even acknowledge when his math may not prove to be accurate. These guys (and Karl Rove) only see the numbers that provide the results they want.

With Rob Ford, it's even worse. His base is going to vote for him. His base is supposedly tired of their government taking their taxes and spending it unwisely on moochers, lazy people, and druggies. Yet, Rob Ford has been openly hiring his friends and family, leeching money for personal projects, failing to do his job in so many ways including not showing up to work because of hangovers and drunkenness, and he is an actual druggy. He is exactly the person they are tired of their tax dollars going to, but they will vote for the guy because he claims to be the guy who will fight the very thing he is. They will vote for the guy just because of his political party, despite overwhelming and consistent evidence that he is nothing but the contrary. He says he's going to raise taxes to pay for the subway upgrades, and they don't even blink.

These people are certifiably insane, and we somehow believe they are going to someday see reality, yet, in a way those of us who believe that are also a bit nuts. With my mother, we ended up having to trick her into taking the anti-psychotics (claiming they were her migraine medicine) just so we could get a few days' lucidity, so we could convince her to continue taking the medication. I don't know what the societal equivalent of that is, but it worked for us.
 
2014-05-01 09:11:29 AM  

VGA Hole: The problem is, when you're crazy, reason and logic sound crazy to you.


Great post.

Sorry about the crazy.
 
2014-05-01 09:15:20 AM  

nekom: I'll bet he thinks the Washington Generals are due for a win too.


He also has the Buffalo Bills picked to win the next Super Bowl
 
2014-05-01 09:16:48 AM  

kbronsito: somedude210: EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.

nate was right at least twice. (both '08 and '12, dunno if he did '10)

he did the midterm. But i don't recall how well he did.


He warned that soft turnout would lead to the a Democratic loss and it did.
 
2014-05-01 09:17:11 AM  

EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.


Yes, totally.

www.rumproast.com
 
2014-05-01 09:19:45 AM  
Kraushaar urged caution to those betting against Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor (D) but also wrote that no one should "overestimate his chances, either."

It could rain tomorrow.  Also, it could not.

I am providing you value.
 
2014-05-01 09:21:05 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Why do these guys always sound like anti-vaxxers? "Look, I know what your *science* says, but in my heart and as a Pundyblogger, I just know what's best for my beloved, special cable news liveshotflakes."


They learned it by watching you, dad Ronald Reagan! They learned it by watching you!

"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."

- Ronald Reagan, admitting the Iran-Contra Affair, March 1987
 
2014-05-01 09:22:14 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Polls favor the Republicans, Democrats say, "Well, the election isn't here yet, so let's work hard to turn things around."
Polls favor the Democrats, Republicans say, "The polls must be wrong! Statistics are a tool of the liberal devil!"

And that's the difference between the two parties' worldviews in a nutshell.


The same worldview transfers over nicely to the climate change debate as well.

The science says there is climate change and it will kill the planet, Democrats say, "Well, the planet isn't dead yet, so let's work hard to turn things around."
The climate isn't changing despite all science showing it but the Republicans say, "The science must be wrong! Science is a tool of the liberal devil!"
 
2014-05-01 09:36:40 AM  

EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.



Except Nate Silver has the Central Limit Theorem on his side.  It's sort of like having gravity on your side.
 
2014-05-01 09:37:29 AM  
Karl Rove        ✔ @KarlRove
Smart piece: may disagree w/ some specifics, but major point is correct. http://ow.ly/wkt2Z;
9:53 AM - 30 Apr 2014

imageshack.com
 
2014-05-01 09:49:38 AM  

EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.


That's true however Silver has a fairly proven track record and is relatively transparent about his methodology, demonstrating it's robustness. Kraushaar has an awful track record and seems to just be waving his hands in order to say that his team has got it in the bag.
 
2014-05-01 09:55:51 AM  
Calling himself a "numbers guy,"

Calling yourself a numbers guy is not the same as being a numbers guy.  Silver lays out his rigorous methodology in great detail, and people who actually do understand statistics can decide how much they want to believe his predictions, which in my case is quite a bit.

What's this guy's process?  Anyone who has bought a racing form at the track considers himself a "numbers guy", but a large fraction of them are habitual losers.
 
2014-05-01 09:58:30 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Polls favor the Republicans, Democrats say, "Well, the election isn't here yet, so let's work hard to turn things around."
Polls favor the Democrats, Republicans say, "The polls must be wrong! Statistics are a tool of the liberal devil!"

And that's the difference between the two parties' worldviews in a nutshell.


This right here.
 
2014-05-01 09:59:30 AM  
Since when do you have to be right to be a pundit.  You can be wrong 100% of the time as long as you keep the viewers tuning in.
 
2014-05-01 10:05:56 AM  
Where does 538 keep its predictions now, I'm trying to find it on their site and am failing...
 
2014-05-01 10:12:48 AM  
We need a spray bottle available at all times around any and every pundit. Any time they say "ignore the metrics for a second; the mood/emotions/atmosphere/feelings/vibrations here suggest that the results of this situation are going to defy all expectations", give them a spray like you would a dog. No, you aren't some expert oracle who has some insight into the unquantifiable elements of the race the egg heads are ignoring. You aren't there because you are able to cut through the mist and bring accurate predictions: success as a pundit has no correlation to accuracy of your claims. You put asses in seats because you get people to tune in, and you get people to tune in by purposely selling your listeners on ignoring available data in favor of trust in your message. It's not journalism, but it's making up an ever larger portion of "news" programming.
 
2014-05-01 10:13:40 AM  

"Why won't reality match my fever dreams?!", wailed most conservative "numbers guys", "WHY!!!???"

 
2014-05-01 10:18:31 AM  

KellyX: Where does 538 keep its predictions now, I'm trying to find it on their site and am failing...


http://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/2014-midterms/

Best I can find; it doesn't look like they've got a map or anything set up like they used to that was the primary point of the old site. We're 6 months out from the election: this is what got people interested in your site, and you end up dropping it in favor of looking identical to any news magazine's website?
 
2014-05-01 10:21:02 AM  

nekom: I'll bet he thinks the Washington Generals are due for a win too.


They actually have beaten the Globetrotters six times, the last time in 1971 while playing under the name the New Jersey Reds. So if you focus on those six wins instead of the 13,000 losses, you can unskew the numbers and see that the Generals are totally going to win this week.
 
2014-05-01 10:21:45 AM  

liam76: EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.

It wasn't that he was "right" witht he ned number of seats.

It is that he did an excellent job with his models on every seat.

(and it was more than once).

I am not betting the house on the guy, but I do trust his models more than anybody elses.


In other words he was right several times in several elections. Let's see how his modelling holds up (btw he does update his projections as new data becomes available).
 
2014-05-01 10:23:32 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Let's see how his modelling holds up (btw he does update his projections as new data becomes available).


Translation:  he's a COWARD who doesn't have the GUTS to stand by the truthiness of his original predictions.

I'm betting it all on the Generals.
 
2014-05-01 10:25:50 AM  
OK, I hadn't actually been to 538 before today, so it took me a while to find their predictions on the Senate race.  I would have to say they seem very thorough. They explain their methodology clearly and support their conclusions rather well for even those of us that are not well versed in statistical analysis.

There are many things left in play.  And the results they predict are hardly overwhelming in the republican favor for Senate control, at 50.2 to 49.8. I like their analysis of the individual state races much better. It will be interesting to see how their numbers change after the generic party opponents can be updated with actual candidate names.

I mean I intend to look to see how a named candidate with let's say a 90% chance of holding against a generic opponent is predicted to fare once an opponent is selected.

I should have been checking this site for a while now. I just always accepted Silver as a statistical authority, and figured that I would have no hope of keeping up.  but it turns out that he can also write down to my level.
 
2014-05-01 10:34:51 AM  
i59.tinypic.com
I dunno. This guy looks legit to me.
 
2014-05-01 10:37:53 AM  

SlothB77: I'm sure Silver's predictions will change as November draws near.

/GOP landslide


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-01 10:57:04 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: SlothB77: I'm sure Silver's predictions will change as November draws near.

/GOP landslide

[img.fark.net image 850x106]


Now watch him avoid this thread like it had smallpox all over it.
 
2014-05-01 11:09:20 AM  
Nate Silver is a good guy, but I'm still going to vote Democrat straight-ticket anyway this Fall. Even if the rest of the country has a death wish and votes to put even more of these right wing psychos into power, I can at least know that I negated one drooling Teabagger's vote.
 
2014-05-01 11:28:09 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Nate Silver is a good guy, but I'm still going to vote Democrat straight-ticket anyway this Fall. Even if the rest of the country has a death wish and votes to put even more of these right wing psychos into power, I can at least know that I negated one drooling Teabagger's vote.


I don't think anybody's expecting you to change your vote for the sole reason that the other guy's winning.  In fact, that'd be an exceedingly foolish thing to do, and would betray a lack principles or morals other than a desire to be on the "winning team".  You shouldn't base your vote on who you feel is winning, but who you feel would do the job better.
 
2014-05-01 11:32:18 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Ahhh, May. When a young man's fancy turns to unskewing polls.

Why do these guys always sound like anti-vaxxers? "Look, I know what your *science* says, but in my heart and as a Pundyblogger, I just know what's best for my beloved, special cable news liveshotflakes."


The pundits, as opposed to the actual pollsters, goal isn't to get it right, but to influence the outcome.  Karl Rove said Romney would win big because Rove thought it was the best way to encourage Republicans to vote and discourge Democrats from voting.  But had somebody given Rove money to privately bet on the winner, I think his internal analysis would've gone a bit differently.  Same with this guy. His goal is to influence the outcome, not make an actual prediction.
 
2014-05-01 11:32:23 AM  

RminusQ: EvilEgg: Just because Nate was right once doesn't make him right always.  Just because whoever the fark this is was wrong doesn't make him always wrong.

Yes, totally.

[www.rumproast.com image 480x239]


How remiss of me-I never shared this screenshot from election night:

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-01 11:33:23 AM  

HeartBurnKid: TV's Vinnie: Nate Silver is a good guy, but I'm still going to vote Democrat straight-ticket anyway this Fall. Even if the rest of the country has a death wish and votes to put even more of these right wing psychos into power, I can at least know that I negated one drooling Teabagger's vote.

I don't think anybody's expecting you to change your vote for the sole reason that the other guy's winning.  In fact, that'd be an exceedingly foolish thing to do, and would betray a lack principles or morals other than a desire to be on the "winning team".  You shouldn't base your vote on who you feel is winning, but who you feel would do the job better.


I think the implication is that if Nate's correct (as he usually is) then voting isn't necessary because his one vote won't matter.  It's a little bit like the reason that Levitt from Freakonomics doesn't vote.  He doesn't think his one vote is going to do anything significant.
 
2014-05-01 11:35:45 AM  

HeartBurnKid: TV's Vinnie: Nate Silver is a good guy, but I'm still going to vote Democrat straight-ticket anyway this Fall. Even if the rest of the country has a death wish and votes to put even more of these right wing psychos into power, I can at least know that I negated one drooling Teabagger's vote.

I don't think anybody's expecting you to change your vote for the sole reason that the other guy's winning.  In fact, that'd be an exceedingly foolish thing to do, and would betray a lack principles or morals other than a desire to be on the "winning team".  You shouldn't base your vote on who you feel is winning, but who you feel would do the job better.


Problem is Republicans are making it increasingly hard to vote someone on that principle.  It's almost become "vote for a Democrat by default" at this stage.

And Republicans keep farking that chicken, thinking people will vote for them.
 
2014-05-01 11:35:46 AM  

born_yesterday: Crotchrocket Slim: Let's see how his modelling holds up (btw he does update his projections as new data becomes available).

Translation:  he's a COWARD who doesn't have the GUTS to stand by the truthiness of his original predictions.

I'm betting it all on the Generals.


Poe's Law in full effect here, congrats!

Anyone who interprets Silver's work as making "predictions" instead of "projections based on mathematical data number crunching" ought to lay off the meth, fake weed, or bathsalts.
 
2014-05-01 11:37:12 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: born_yesterday: Crotchrocket Slim: Let's see how his modelling holds up (btw he does update his projections as new data becomes available).

Translation:  he's a COWARD who doesn't have the GUTS to stand by the truthiness of his original predictions.

I'm betting it all on the Generals.

Poe's Law in full effect here, congrats!

Anyone who interprets Silver's work as making "predictions" instead of "projections based on mathematical data number crunching" ought to lay off the meth, fake weed, or bathsalts.


This right here.
 
2014-05-01 11:38:57 AM  

Rwa2play: HeartBurnKid: TV's Vinnie: Nate Silver is a good guy, but I'm still going to vote Democrat straight-ticket anyway this Fall. Even if the rest of the country has a death wish and votes to put even more of these right wing psychos into power, I can at least know that I negated one drooling Teabagger's vote.

I don't think anybody's expecting you to change your vote for the sole reason that the other guy's winning.  In fact, that'd be an exceedingly foolish thing to do, and would betray a lack principles or morals other than a desire to be on the "winning team".  You shouldn't base your vote on who you feel is winning, but who you feel would do the job better.

Problem is Republicans are making it increasingly hard to vote someone on that principle.  It's almost become "vote for a Democrat by default" at this stage.

And Republicans keep farking that chicken, thinking people will vote for them.


How I wish that were universally true.  Sadly, there are a lot of people who still "vote for a Republican by default", even though the Republicans are the absolute worst of the worst, and there's even more "neither one's great, so I won't vote at all" folks that allow the Republicans to get into power with their apathy.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report