Reply With Quote
Silver was one of the few saying Trump had a real chance on election night. He said it only took a polling error of a couple percent to elect Trump, and that's exactly what happened.
Silver was one of the few saying Trump had a real chance on election night. He said it only took a polling error of a couple percent to elect Trump, and that's exactly what happened.
He was hedging his bets at the last minute to try to save his reputation, after over a full calendar year of Trump proving all his predictions wrong.
He has been talking about Clinton's rust belt firewall being fragile as for a while now.
Yet he was still writing articles like "Trump Will Have A Hard Time Turning Blue States Red Next November," "Clinton's Leading In Exactly The States She Needs To Win," and "Clinton Probably Finished Off Trump Last Night."
Face it, the guy is just another pundit. He's not Nostradamus. He was also wrong about the 2014 midterms and Brexit. And every time he's wrong, he blames the polls for being "inaccurate" instead of owning up to his own predictions.
Of course he's a pundit. Who said otherwise? Do you know what a pundit is?
Do you even read the articles you about? The "Clinton's Leading in Exactly The States She Needs to Win" article was about how fragile her firewall was, and how winning New Hampshire was the only thing between her winning and Trump winning in his projection at the time. Go look at that picture a few lines down in that article that shows New Hampshire being her crossover point to 270 and her next best state being a light red Nevada.
What change in methodology did the LA Times poll use this time around? They were spot on pretty much the entire time.
He built his brand off of ridiculing pundits and embracing the data instead. Since he got big, he's turned into the same pundits he used to make fun of.
What is a pundit
"spot on"
They had Trump +3% and he will end up losing by 1-2%
Wut? Donald just won Arizona and about to win Michigan which will give him 300+ electoral votes
Thats no polling error
Thats a ing anihilation by the use of a concrete dildo on Shillary
Philo still fishing for a 6 page argument over semantics.
Wut? Donald just won Arizona and about to win Michigan which will give him 300+ electoral votes
Thats no polling error
Thats a ing anihilation by the use of a concrete dildo on Shillaryannihilation when he didn't win the popular vote
306 - 228 is not a concrete dildo anihilation? Come on now
And Shiltler is not sure to win popular vote. Not convincingly at least
No, winning the election by an expected -1.5 points isn't annihilation. Annihilation would be like Reagan ting on Mondale in every state but Minnesota or FDR over Hoover. Annihilation would be when the vast majority of the country says one candidate was way better.
Disagree. it was a beatdown. Especially given the fact the corporate media called it for ler by 100 points.
It was not close.
What's Up Godord? Where have you been the last few months?You seemed to have disappeared.
How about that -2 point beatdown the Spurs put on the Rockets last night?
Dude is coming off like a passionate partisan shill instead of a disinterested neutral statistician
yeah like he was the only one thinking trump had a chance in the beginning. give me a break
He was 100 to 1 when it all began.
Silver gave thorough ways how trump could win. 32% is significant.
C'mon, you and I both know the answer to that.
Eyup. 1's and 2's get rolled all the time on single dice.
To the OP:
His brand definitely took a hit. He did couch a lot of his language appropriately in ways that people with unsophisticated viewpoints will find weasel-y and people who know what the they are talking about will recognize as good probabilistic language.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
