Nate: Hillary is leading by around 3 points What actually happened: Hillary won by around 2.5 points Nate: Trump has a strong chance at winning the electoral college What actually happened: trump won the electoral college He wasn’t even that off bruh and everybody still wrote him off
so true! Also, the statement at 1:20 how it's going to be worse "when you under-perform among white non-college voters". College was not accounted for in those polls and they under sampled. It is accounted for in new polls.
You can’t jump on both sides of the fence and claim you were correct, lol. The 538 website for 2016 is still posted, and they only predicted a 10.5% chance that Clinton would win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. He still didn’t consider the actual outcome a likely possibility. * 2016 Election Forecast | FiveThirtyEight* Allan Lichtman is the only one that got it right, predicting Trump the outright winner regardless of the popular vote.
He got so much heat before the election for saying it is a close election. Not only right about that, he notes that the Dems might be a bit too comfortable with the difference early voting will give them.
To everyone still saying Nate got it "wrong"...he literally explained exactly how Trump could win despite being an underdog, and lo and behold that's exactly what happened. Edit: One thing I find amusing is how much hate Nate has gotten from both sides of the aisle about this. The left got mad because they thought he was telling them that a Hillary win was a done deal (he wasn't). The right was mad because they thought he was telling them Trump was going to lose (he wasn't). You can either accept what the model said at face value, or not. If uncertainty is intolerable for you, don't read 538.
Yeah, Nate did a fairly good job. It was those other forecasters (like the NYT) that gave Hillary a 98 percent chance of winning that made the prediction with their heart instead of their head.
@@ScottLongwellR yup, great point. Political predictions tend to be so fraught because people are really emotionally invested in the outcome, but Nate seems to go out of his way to make sure his model doesn't do this.
@@dominikbaumgartner9221 You're right, my mistake. It was the Huffington Post that gave Hillary a 98% chance of winning. And the Princeton Election Consortium gave Clinton a 99 percent chance of winning
@Yuri Orloff Not sure you realize that this completely agrees with what I said (albeit depending on how you define landslide). _Nobody_ thought it probable, but Nate Silver was definitely one of the prominent figures saying it was more possible than many were saying at the time.
@Yuri Orloff Nothing I said was incorrect nor did I change my stance....and Nate Silver is not "my guy". Evidently you play political tribalism based on these assumptions you've made about me, but that doesn't mean other people do as well.
@Yuri Orloff Claiming he didn't really say what? Because you seem to think I'm arguing he predicted a Trump win was likely.....if so, that's not what I said and I recommend you to read my comments again. I said he gave Trump better odds _than many others did_ - for instance while Huffington Post may have put Hilary's chances of winning at 99% and others followed suit with similarly high numbers, Nate Silver/FiveThirtyEight put Trump winning at more than a 1 in 3 shot....and as you can see in this very video he did not treat Hilary winning as a foregone conclusion. If it's still not clear to you by now, then I dunno man - maybe work on your reading comprehension.
@@finchborat Seems like the cult is you being anti-538, they are simply saying he was the most accurate of all polsters, someone does not understand what probability is.
@@QueenJneeuQ No, you and the 538 supporters are the real cult. Argue all you want, but the end of the day, he still got it wrong. You and others defending him goofing up by saying "oh, he was the only one who gave Trump the best chance" is pretty cult-like, as well as grasping at straws. A lot of people on the left viewed his data as proof Hillary would win. You and others on the left would've dumped and trashed Silver/538 like crazy almost immediately had he had Trump winning for the whole campaign only to see Hillary win in the end. I swear, more have stood up for him in 2 years than people on the right did for Dick Morris for 2 minutes after Obama had sealed the '012 election, assuming anyone stood up for Morris getting it wrong.
Looking back at this from 2020, Silver just about called it right: he suggested Trump could win Electoral College, because Clinton weaker than Obama in Mid-West States. VERY impressive.
At first I railed against 538 as I supported Bernie and didn't like his outlook on the primary. It was my own bias that blinded. His model turned out to be mostly accurate, much to my chagrin.
"You made you're bones in 2008 and 2012" what did he mean by this? All nate said, was that Obama had a higher chance of winning those elections. So really he could have been wrong even though Obama did win.
@@christ5672 Nate doesn't make predictions, he tries to determine the odds of elections. Whether he is every correct in his assessments is impossible to confirm. He says Trump has a 1 in 10 shot of winning the election, but the problem is that there's only one presidential election in 2020 and not ten. So we have no possible way to tell if Nate was right.
@@capitalism420 sure he had Florida at like 50.3% chance to win in 2012 or something like that but his predictions do show the margin of victory estimate so that’s a good way to show by state what the prediction is. The individual state predictions will be a good indicator of how well his model does overall
@@christ5672 I don't think you understand. Saying someone has a non-zero non-100% chance of winning is literally meaningless. In those scenarios Nate is right no matter what.
People don't understand how forecasts work. He predicted Trump had a 35% chance of winning. The fact that Trump won does not mean his forecast is wrong. Just like if you roll a dice there's about a 16% chance of getting a 6 doesn't mean that if you actually roll a 6 that the math is somehow wrong. If you actually understand math and look into his analysis it's really solid. I say this as someone who went to MIT and majored in Math.
"You made you're bones in 2008 and 2012" what did he mean by this? All nate said, was that Obama had a higher chance of winning those elections. So really he could have been wrong even though Obama did win.
@@capitalism420 i believe he got every state right in '08, and either that or very close in '12, so not only did he get the winner but was spot on with the final electoral college count, an impressive feat.
People need to stop giving him shit now, he was the ONLY pollster who was saying "Uhhhh yeah its not certain, Trump can win this if he turns out white midwestern voters" Which is exactly what happened. NO ONE ELSE even brought that up!
This guy isn't even smart enough to know a double comb over isn't fooling anyone. I think a poll would prove this assertion to be the majority opinion. What do you think?
In complete fairness to Nate Silver, regardless of his politics, he was about the only pollster that saw the writing on the wall regarding Trump. The fact she didn't get near 50%, the fact that there was a large undecided and third party percentage & the problems with the white working class. He was bang on except for the fact he had her winning...
"You made you're bones in 2008 and 2012" what did he mean by this. All nate said, was that Obama had a higher chance of winning those elections. So really he could have been wrong even though Obama did win.
+Wolfgang I did not, had a very strong feeling we were going to vote out so made a handsome profit on it at my local betting shop! Have just placed a bet on Trump to win.
David Schultz While he wasn't perfect, the Huffington post (Extreme biased pollster) said clinton had a 99. They said this forecast was too uncertain, even though it was the closest.
And yet, his cult following is still like "StAtIsTiCs" and "YoU DoN't UnDeRsTaNd PrObAbIlIbItY." It's ridiculous they continue to defend him for getting it wrong.
Před 4 lety
Yes, her chances were getting better with the early vote, then it went downhill after she started underperforming in the Rust Belt.
Had to look it up because people were claiming he was predicting an easy win for Clinton even election day in an video from earlier before the election. Of course he didn't at all, he's here saying it's a close race just like he said he did after...
Though it's still sad that the 538 cult still defends him 3 yrs after he got it wrong. They would've dumped him in a heartbeat if he had Trump leading throughout and Hillary ended up winning.
I don't know the first thing about statistics but HuffPost seems way off. Most of the reliable sources I've seen are at 3:1 or 2:1 Hillary. Those tend to be some of the best indicators. Trump would have to win all the battlegrounds and pick off 1-2. It's highly unlikely but possible.
He hedged his bet but he still ended up way off. This election calls for introspection into the way polling is done and the uselessness of the currently-applied methodologies.
Robert Evans It looked to me at first glance like he was combing the hair away to reveal the shiny pate beneath in it's full glory... =) On second viewing I can see the hair is combed both towards *and* away... I think he's possibly going for more of an osprey nest?
George Snuffleluffaguss just hates it that Silver gives Trump a fair chance of winning, even though they both really thought it impossible. Sorry Georgie, those campaign donations you made to Hitlary didn’t help her a damn bit!!!!! Hahahahahahahaha
So Trump had a 34.2% chance of winning. To put this number in perspective, if you hit .342 in Major League Baseball, you are at the top of the league and a multimillionaire.
Nate Silver should be humble and admit his horrific failure and that stats and polling are mostly b.s. and nothing like predicting weather. He would be wise to change the course of his career.
Fast forward August 15 we now see Nate Silver's true colors: a con. Nate Silver got way too much credit for "The Signal and the Noise." In it he did not espouse any insights not already known, he use good tools and used them well and his predictions turned out to be right, which happens even when guaranteeing such a result consistently is not yet possible. Nonetheless he has risen to cult-like status. This is because the mass of people praying at his feet have zilch mathematical skills and believe anyone who does must be a magical creature. That's not bad enough, Nate Silver has taken this band wagon on the road, turned it into a snake oil operation, and working hard to cash in on his divinity status. He's not only unable to produce new mathematics, he's morally deficient. So next he's using the platform that has only swollen up with credulous zombies and is using to do analytics, but for political purpose. He's become a pundit and as such he's pandering to the donor class. Big surprise. So it's not a surprise that on the wake of the progressive surge in the this week's primaries, he's blundering forth his non-mathematical analysis that the progressive are not doing well. To be precise, Nate Silver stated that Justice Democrats "had the worst win rates." In other words, he couched his conclusion in mathematical terms "win rates" so that his base would be impressed and defer to him. Win rates? WTF is that? . . .and more importantly who cares? We all know discrete results do not a trend make no matter how hard Nate Silver would like to extrapolate some self-serving meaning out of them. Shameful. Nate Silver is going to give Data Analytics a bad name and those who care about these things are here warned of the need to establish standards before their beloved and rather new discipline is taken over by con artists.
Nate: Hillary is leading by around 3 points
What actually happened: Hillary won by around 2.5 points
Nate: Trump has a strong chance at winning the electoral college
What actually happened: trump won the electoral college
He wasn’t even that off bruh and everybody still wrote him off
so true! Also, the statement at 1:20 how it's going to be worse "when you under-perform among white non-college voters". College was not accounted for in those polls and they under sampled. It is accounted for in new polls.
He gave Hillary a 70% chance to win. That's pretty far off. And 30% isn't that great a chance.
@@finchborat 30% chance you’ll have a heart attack tomorrow morning..How does that it feel when U put a 30% chance like that
@@nathanielthrush5581 I won't be sweating it out too much.
There's a 70% chance I won't have one in the morning.
You can’t jump on both sides of the fence and claim you were correct, lol. The 538 website for 2016 is still posted, and they only predicted a 10.5% chance that Clinton would win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. He still didn’t consider the actual outcome a likely possibility.
* 2016 Election Forecast | FiveThirtyEight*
Allan Lichtman is the only one that got it right, predicting Trump the outright winner regardless of the popular vote.
He got so much heat before the election for saying it is a close election. Not only right about that, he notes that the Dems might be a bit too comfortable with the difference early voting will give them.
To everyone still saying Nate got it "wrong"...he literally explained exactly how Trump could win despite being an underdog, and lo and behold that's exactly what happened.
Edit: One thing I find amusing is how much hate Nate has gotten from both sides of the aisle about this. The left got mad because they thought he was telling them that a Hillary win was a done deal (he wasn't). The right was mad because they thought he was telling them Trump was going to lose (he wasn't). You can either accept what the model said at face value, or not. If uncertainty is intolerable for you, don't read 538.
Yeah, Nate did a fairly good job. It was those other forecasters (like the NYT) that gave Hillary a 98 percent chance of winning that made the prediction with their heart instead of their head.
@@ScottLongwellR yup, great point. Political predictions tend to be so fraught because people are really emotionally invested in the outcome, but Nate seems to go out of his way to make sure his model doesn't do this.
@@ScottLongwellR The NY Times at no point gave Hillary a 98% chance of winning. They had her chances at about 85%.
@@dominikbaumgartner9221 You're right, my mistake. It was the Huffington Post that gave Hillary a 98% chance of winning. And the Princeton Election Consortium gave Clinton a 99 percent chance of winning
Yuri Orloff No, at 7 p.m. she had Clinton winning 323 electoral votes, and it was by about half a percentage point in two states.
I literally just clicked this vid so I could figure out that hairline
What'd you figure out Balls Deep
@Yuri Orloff Not really - he was one of the forecasters saying that Trump had a chance, and gave him better odds than most anyone.
@Yuri Orloff Not sure you realize that this completely agrees with what I said (albeit depending on how you define landslide). _Nobody_ thought it probable, but Nate Silver was definitely one of the prominent figures saying it was more possible than many were saying at the time.
@Yuri Orloff Nothing I said was incorrect nor did I change my stance....and Nate Silver is not "my guy". Evidently you play political tribalism based on these assumptions you've made about me, but that doesn't mean other people do as well.
@Yuri Orloff Claiming he didn't really say what? Because you seem to think I'm arguing he predicted a Trump win was likely.....if so, that's not what I said and I recommend you to read my comments again.
I said he gave Trump better odds _than many others did_ - for instance while Huffington Post may have put Hilary's chances of winning at 99% and others followed suit with similarly high numbers, Nate Silver/FiveThirtyEight put Trump winning at more than a 1 in 3 shot....and as you can see in this very video he did not treat Hilary winning as a foregone conclusion.
If it's still not clear to you by now, then I dunno man - maybe work on your reading comprehension.
everyone screaming 'wrong' either never took statistics or failed the course
But he did get it wrong. If you're showing data that says one thing and it ends up being a completely different thing, you're wrong. Period.
@@finchborat Why are you replying this to everyone?
@@QueenJneeuQ To make sure everyone gets the message and the 538 cult/defenders don't go unchallenged.
@@finchborat Seems like the cult is you being anti-538, they are simply saying he was the most accurate of all polsters, someone does not understand what probability is.
@@QueenJneeuQ No, you and the 538 supporters are the real cult. Argue all you want, but the end of the day, he still got it wrong. You and others defending him goofing up by saying "oh, he was the only one who gave Trump the best chance" is pretty cult-like, as well as grasping at straws. A lot of people on the left viewed his data as proof Hillary would win.
You and others on the left would've dumped and trashed Silver/538 like crazy almost immediately had he had Trump winning for the whole campaign only to see Hillary win in the end. I swear, more have stood up for him in 2 years than people on the right did for Dick Morris for 2 minutes after Obama had sealed the '012 election, assuming anyone stood up for Morris getting it wrong.
Looking back at this from 2020, Silver just about called it right: he suggested Trump could win Electoral College, because Clinton weaker than Obama in Mid-West States. VERY impressive.
At first I railed against 538 as I supported Bernie and didn't like his outlook on the primary. It was my own bias that blinded. His model turned out to be mostly accurate, much to my chagrin.
"You made you're bones in 2008 and 2012" what did he mean by this? All nate said, was that Obama had a higher chance of winning those elections. So really he could have been wrong even though Obama did win.
@@capitalism420 What George meant was that Nate did amazing in 08 and 12, he predicted 49 states in 2008 and all of them in 2012 correctly
@@christ5672 Nate doesn't make predictions, he tries to determine the odds of elections. Whether he is every correct in his assessments is impossible to confirm. He says Trump has a 1 in 10 shot of winning the election, but the problem is that there's only one presidential election in 2020 and not ten. So we have no possible way to tell if Nate was right.
@@capitalism420 sure he had Florida at like 50.3% chance to win in 2012 or something like that but his predictions do show the margin of victory estimate so that’s a good way to show by state what the prediction is. The individual state predictions will be a good indicator of how well his model does overall
@@christ5672 I don't think you understand. Saying someone has a non-zero non-100% chance of winning is literally meaningless. In those scenarios Nate is right no matter what.
Poor Nate can't really win with anyone
Nate: Hillary has a 65% chance
Hillary Supporter: REEEEEEE NOOO DRUMPH HAS A 1% CHANCE!
Steven Wade Nate trying to play it down the middle now
People don't understand how forecasts work. He predicted Trump had a 35% chance of winning. The fact that Trump won does not mean his forecast is wrong. Just like if you roll a dice there's about a 16% chance of getting a 6 doesn't mean that if you actually roll a 6 that the math is somehow wrong. If you actually understand math and look into his analysis it's really solid. I say this as someone who went to MIT and majored in Math.
He still got it wrong in the end.
"You made you're bones in 2008 and 2012" what did he mean by this? All nate said, was that Obama had a higher chance of winning those elections. So really he could have been wrong even though Obama did win.
@@capitalism420 i believe he got every state right in '08, and either that or very close in '12, so not only did he get the winner but was spot on with the final electoral college count, an impressive feat.
what is on his head... WTF Nate... what did you do to your hair????... try predicting where it went..
His hair is due to a bet he lost that incorrectly gave hrc the landslide 300+ victory. Silver does rust.
What's worse, Nate Silver's hair or his prediction? LOL
I’ve heard of comb overs, but comb forwards?
People need to stop giving him shit now, he was the ONLY pollster who was saying "Uhhhh yeah its not certain, Trump can win this if he turns out white midwestern voters" Which is exactly what happened. NO ONE ELSE even brought that up!
He still had Hillary winning though.
@@ucfkid67 🤡
ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and NBC lost last night
YES!
They actually won big time with the viewership. An close election turning like an upset, what more could they need to make people tune in !
Let’s be honest: you clicked for the comb-over.
Nate silver has nothing on Styxhexenhammer's youtube channel predictions and commentary!! I would watch ABC again if you had someone like Styx
What the fck is up with that hair? 98% of both women in the US who think Nate is rocking' are blind.
***** When you lose to Trump in the hair war, it's time to change your algorithm.
***** I agree because he takes the human element into account. Polls only look at who voted in the last cycle and who they voted for.
***** In 2008 Obama screwed her and in 2016 she screwed herself.
***** People may shout that down but it is the undeniable truth!
That is the funkiest comb over I ever did see it is like a eye magnet it is hard not to keep on looking at it
Hahaha! It's incredibly distracting!
Stephanopoulos asks Nate the same question three times here...media wasn't doing a good job of educating people about the polling.
Pre-2016: OMG Nate is too bullish on Trump! Post-2016: OMG Nate wasn't bullish enough on Trump!
They're called numbers people, 30% =/= 0%
But if you predict a 70% chance of rain and no rain falls, you're gonna look pretty stupid.
@@finchborat and yet metereologists are wrong almost all the time 😂 they dont get as much criticism as silver did.
@@4kultrahenryd But not that wrong.
Nate Rust should've been laid off the day after the 2016 election instead of a few months ago.
it's getting exciting now,do you feel it?:)
This guy isn't even smart enough to know a double comb over isn't fooling anyone. I think a poll would prove this assertion to be the majority opinion. What do you think?
Nate has significantly less "ahm" moments 4 years ago. In his podacast the ahms are so distracting
He sounds so tired of everything to do with the election in his podcasts lol.
In complete fairness to Nate Silver, regardless of his politics, he was about the only pollster that saw the writing on the wall regarding Trump. The fact she didn't get near 50%, the fact that there was a large undecided and third party percentage & the problems with the white working class. He was bang on except for the fact he had her winning...
"You made you're bones in 2008 and 2012" what did he mean by this. All nate said, was that Obama had a higher chance of winning those elections. So really he could have been wrong even though Obama did win.
I called him out on BS poll system on Twitter. He gets TRIGGERED easily.
hes only been wrong once in 20 years and it was because he went against his own model.
Yeah, he does not suffer fools gladly.
+Wolfgang He got it wrong on Brexit.
so did almost everybody
+Wolfgang I did not, had a very strong feeling we were going to vote out so made a handsome profit on it at my local betting shop! Have just placed a bet on Trump to win.
the funniest part of this video is that dudes hair
Remember guys, this guy was the ONLY one who got every 2012 state right... take him seriously.
LOL
David Schultz While he wasn't perfect, the Huffington post (Extreme biased pollster) said clinton had a 99. They said this forecast was too uncertain, even though it was the closest.
Clearly you don't understand statistics. We don't know if he got anything right.
Not then, not now; not never!
Nate Iron Ore
Lol Styx
Or Nate Rust
L.O.L.
Nate revised his prediction to 78% around 8:30pm ET on ABC, up from 72% at 7pm on Tuesday, Nov. 6th 2016. He RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.
And yet, his cult following is still like "StAtIsTiCs" and "YoU DoN't UnDeRsTaNd PrObAbIlIbItY." It's ridiculous they continue to defend him for getting it wrong.
Yes, her chances were getting better with the early vote, then it went downhill after she started underperforming in the Rust Belt.
that guy has nice hair
Isn't it awesome? It's like the opposite of a comb-over... it takes a lot of self esteem to proudly sport thinning hair like that...
+Glass Menagerie lmao. That was actually pretty funny.
Nate has a double combo-over!
Who's here in 2020??
Had to look it up because people were claiming he was predicting an easy win for Clinton even election day in an video from earlier before the election. Of course he didn't at all, he's here saying it's a close race just like he said he did after...
@@sluxi He gave Hillary a 70% chance to win. Sounds like he predicted an easy win.
Nate !!! Study up the comb over hair style!!!!☝️☝️☝️🤣🤣🤣 Geeeeeezus man!!!!
STILL LOVING THIS IN 2019
Though it's still sad that the 538 cult still defends him 3 yrs after he got it wrong. They would've dumped him in a heartbeat if he had Trump leading throughout and Hillary ended up winning.
Feb. 2020! Still laughing my Conservative ass off!
Dude got a reverse mohawk
I don't know the first thing about statistics but HuffPost seems way off. Most of the reliable sources I've seen are at 3:1 or 2:1 Hillary. Those tend to be some of the best indicators. Trump would have to win all the battlegrounds and pick off 1-2. It's highly unlikely but possible.
Steve Pak yeah....... so now what else do you have to say
George used to work for Clinton. Impartial?
Did he give that thing on his head a name?
It's called " the ladykiller" hairdo which was popular in the early 19th century.
Hahaha!
He hedged his bet but he still ended up way off. This election calls for introspection into the way polling is done and the uselessness of the currently-applied methodologies.
Nate you should call Styxhexenhammer the next time you need a prediction. We love you Styx !!!
The only difference between nate and styx map was one state. And technically they were both off.
Though nate more than styx
eat crow 538
looks like moses is parting his hair like the red sea
The comb over is back in style!!!
I think that's like the opposite of a comb-over....
Glass Menagerie I think that combing on's hair OVER a bald spot is what a comb-over is. It seems like he is doing exactly that.
Robert Evans It looked to me at first glance like he was combing the hair away to reveal the shiny pate beneath in it's full glory... =) On second viewing I can see the hair is combed both towards *and* away... I think he's possibly going for more of an osprey nest?
nate silver tipping it slightly in her favor for that plausible deniability of him being biased if she fucks up
Nate Carbon.
"does'nt'
I keep picturing Matt Damon pounding on the window and asking Nate Silver if he likes apples.
OZONE!
Nate silver was super accurate, Clinton ended up winning by 3 percent but losing the electoral college in the swing states.
Nate needs a new haircut.
Nates combover dose'nt quite reach, hee hee
Forecasting guru? Haha haha.
>Nate Cardboard
why is there so much hate for Nate Silver in this video?
A little late. But it is because Nate Bronze is biased in favour of Clinton, he said Trump wouldn't win the primaries.
Because people dont understand statistics, or simply didn't even listen to what he had to say
What is up with his hair???
damnnnn. he was on point son. respect.
George Snuffleluffaguss just hates it that Silver gives Trump a fair chance of winning, even though they both really thought it impossible. Sorry Georgie, those campaign donations you made to Hitlary didn’t help her a damn bit!!!!! Hahahahahahahaha
WRONG
And 6 yrs after getting 2016 wrong, Nate Rust is finally gone! He should've been laid off after missing big on 2016.
JUST
Whoops-a-doodle
Nate Silver the Bernie Sanders basher
"forecasting guru"
there getting scared. lol.
MI, PA & WI Blue? HAHAHA
Now known as Nate Slag.
I call him Nate Rust.
“Guru”
And he was right
@@antiantiderivative If he was right, Hillary would be president right now.
finchborat Where did he say Hillary had a 100% chance of winning?
@@antiantiderivative He gave Hillary a strong chance to win. A lot of people took it as proof she would win.
finchborat Then blame the people for misinterpreting probability.
Nate Fecal Matter
What’s up with his hair
So Trump had a 34.2% chance of winning. To put this number in perspective, if you hit .342 in Major League Baseball, you are at the top of the league and a multimillionaire.
Apples to oranges
When you predict a 70% chance of rain and you don't get a single drop, you're gonna have egg on your face.
Nate Plastic Shopping Bags on the Side of the Road
Wrongamundo freylekh.
This is a guru ? missed primaries, Cubs and Presidency
lol
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First 😂😂
*Nate Bronze*
Or Nate Rust
Nate Fool's Gold.
His hair looks terrible, he should just shave it all off and be bald.
Ryan Gaul
2 to 1 favorite eh? Legacy pollsters are a joke.
His prediction is as bad as his hair.
Republicans who have no substance or brains: oMg hIs hAir
What's worse, Nate Silver's hair or his prediction? LOL. Hopefully, he's working at McDonalds now.
He didn't count on Russian hacking. They did the same thing on Scandal
That nose.
Actually he was the most accurate of the major pollsters. If Trump has a one in three chance, that one comes up a lot.
Still got it wrong.
EPIC FAIL! Now, he is done! LOL!
Nate was fucking wrong, like everyone else except the Trump camp.
No he wasn't lol did you watch the video
You need to shave that hair off dude.
Bullseye!
He's now in the same category as Dick Morris. #credibilitylost
Nate Silver should be humble and admit his horrific failure and that stats and polling are mostly b.s. and nothing like predicting weather. He would be wise to change the course of his career.
Nate was closer than most people.
Still got it wrong.
LOL!
Trump 2020!
just came to give daily thumbs down. bye
He was atleast being more accurate
He still got it wrong. He had Hillary winning.
Fast forward August 15 we now see Nate Silver's true colors: a con.
Nate Silver got way too much credit for "The Signal and the Noise." In it he did not espouse any insights not already known, he use good tools and used them well and his predictions turned out to be right, which happens even when guaranteeing such a result consistently is not yet possible. Nonetheless he has risen to cult-like status. This is because the mass of people praying at his feet have zilch mathematical skills and believe anyone who does must be a magical creature.
That's not bad enough, Nate Silver has taken this band wagon on the road, turned it into a snake oil operation, and working hard to cash in on his divinity status. He's not only unable to produce new mathematics, he's morally deficient.
So next he's using the platform that has only swollen up with credulous zombies and is using to do analytics, but for political purpose. He's become a pundit and as such he's pandering to the donor class. Big surprise.
So it's not a surprise that on the wake of the progressive surge in the this week's primaries, he's blundering forth his non-mathematical analysis that the progressive are not doing well. To be precise, Nate Silver stated that Justice Democrats "had the worst win rates." In other words, he couched his conclusion in mathematical terms "win rates" so that his base would be impressed and defer to him. Win rates? WTF is that? . . .and more importantly who cares? We all know discrete results do not a trend make no matter how hard Nate Silver would like to extrapolate some self-serving meaning out of them.
Shameful.
Nate Silver is going to give Data Analytics a bad name and those who care about these things are here warned of the need to establish standards before their beloved and rather new discipline is taken over by con artists.
So wrong
He is super bad. He can't get anything right.
He said that Hillary could lose in the EC and not to assume they’re safe, so....
Nate Silver ...........guru ! What a waste of space.
JUST