Nate Silver turns into a GOP troll-muses about Trump winning an EV victory

[NewsCenter28]

The little punk has downplayed COVID all the way and now this. Nothing at all in the race right now calls for this tweet! This asshole is dead to me!! If he posted this and the shit he posts about COVID here, he’d be long since tombstoned or at least hated by most members.

Link to tweet

?s=21

[SiliconValley_Dem]

1. more like click bait troll

[NewsCenter28]

3. He's fallen a long way from his days as Pablano on DKOS

Not sure what happened to him.

[GusFring]

2. Well he's openly trying to rig the election, so it's not crazy that he'll win.

[RDANGELO]

4. Looks like he is just covering all of his bases.

If Trump somehow closes the gap, he can say, " I told you this could happen".

[Cha]

5. I tweeted this to him..

F*** your stupid prediction, Nate. I don't even like you anymore.

[NewsCenter28]

6. Well said Cha!

Thanks for posting!

[Cha]

10. Mahalo, NewsCenter28!

Unreal what Nate tweeted.. he just Dumped on Our Democracy.

[herding cats]

16. Cha, I hope you know I love you, but I disagree.

Please, see my post below. We need this wake up call.

I want us hungry and fighting, fearful and working, not complacent and lazy this cycle.

We need to work, fight and freaking turnout and win.

Love to you, dear friend.

[canetoad]

28. Cha, love you too

But I agree with herding cats. No time for complacency.

[budkin]

7. He was humiliated in 2016.

Like everyone else he’s shell shocked and covering his bases.

[Happy Hoosier]

9. Was he?

He gave Trump a 30% chance of winning on Election Day, and I remember people here blasting him for not saying Hillary was a lock.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. It's asinine to criticize Nate Silver for 2016

His analysis was absolutely perfect, by far the best of any analyst. Nate repeatedly said Hillary was not nearly as certain as other models were insisting. In particular he ridiculed Sam Wang and his 99% based on state polls. Nate correctly said that Hillary's edge in the electoral college was fragile, and that a small polling error in the midwestern states would likely transfer to all of those states, and it could be just enough to allow Trump to pull out a squeaker.

Nate also emphasized the comparatively high number of undecideds as a factor that played to the uncertainty and gave the underdog more of a chance than it appeared at first glance.

What was he supposed to do...make Trump the favorite? He would have been laughed out of the profession. Nate is a compiler. The morons were the ones who shouted Trump as victor all along. They got lucky via Comey and everything else.

[Happy Hoosier]

8. Jeez.. relax folks!

All he is saying is that there is a long way to go yet, and if it‘s close, Trump likely wins because the electoral college let’s people in Wyoming have a vote more powerful than anyone else. . He’s Right. Don’t get mad...... VOTE.

[fishwax]

11. I don't see what's wrong with that tweet

It's not as though victory is guaranteed.

Gotta get to work!

[regnaD kciN]

20. What he's saying is that, "IF it's a photo finish," Trump probably wins the EV...

...which shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, considering that the same thing happened in a NON-"photo finish" last time around, and people analyzing state demographics have said that it's possible Trump could win this time while losing the popular vote by five million, not the three million of last time around.

On the other hand, right now, it's anything but a "photo finish." And we have to do all we can to make sure it stays that way.

Silver isn't saying "even with the poll results right now, Trump is probably going to win." He's saying that, if the race tightens down to being close, the GOP has an electoral-college edge. And he's not the only one saying that -- Sam Wang, last time I checked, was saying that Biden's 8% or so lead is only about 5.5% away from an electoral vote dead-heat. The lesson for Democrats should be obvious: we can't afford to get complacent and start planning our election night "victory" parties when there's a lot of work still to be done, and will be until the final polls close on November 3rd.

[tritsofme]

12. I'm very confused why this post would elicit such a response from you.

Nate’s words here seem eminently reasonable, though I have no idea what he has been saying about COVID.

[BGBD]

27. Nothing really

He reports new numbers daily and compares them to the previous week. He says that you should be careful declaring that there will be an outbreak after X event because it's probably not something that you're going to be able to prove or that will be obvious and you'll cause people to say that the event didn't cause the massive outbreak you said it would and you're blowing it all out of proportion. Which is pretty much right. We haven't been able to show that outbreak were directly tied to anything specifically. States reopened and were not horrible until everyone started ignoring SD rules after a little time had passed.

I don't get the hate for Nate on any of this. We should be happy there are people out there reminding everyone that Trump could win reelection. I certainly don't want anyone thinking they can take this year off.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. I don't have a problem with 538's abundance of caution

He said in a podcast yesterday that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide, but there are many variables that could impact polls in the next 90 days.

[NewsCenter28]

23. Well that's reasonable

But what he said tonight was that people aren't paying attention and that the polls may very well not be accurate. Saying the polls may very well not be accurate is way different than saying what he did in the podcast apparently that events could impact the polls and that if events swing Toad's way, he could win. That would be fair enough.

[herding cats]

14. Don't be mad at me, I love you people here, but I'm glad.

I want us scared and focused this cycle. I want us fighting for every single vote, because we have to!

I want us knowing we can lose, because we can. I want to see us fighting for our democracy like never before and not resting on our haunches doing nothing to win this term, because we think it's in the bag. It's not! Fight like you've never fought before, dear citizens! Vote, register voters, work, please?!

Yes, Trump is vile, but so are a lot of people out there. Don't become complacent. He can win, we're the only way he doesn't.

[BannonsLiver]

15. His equivocation on everything is tiresome.

Silver never really “says” anything because everything he says comes with a preamble of qualifiers. I like Harry Enten because he just says what the numbers say without the need to couch it to the nth degree.

[Amishman]

36. It's because he's honest and realistic

We live in a world of uncertainty and shades of gray. It is all too easy to ignore the complexities and fall into a binary mindset.

Nate hedges on everything because things are unknown and to be accurate he needs to explain all those caveats.

[BannonsLiver]

42. No, it's because he can't commit to an opinion.

He’s the guy that takes 45 minutes to decide what he wants off the menu.

[helpisontheway]

17. He was right at the end of the 2016 race. He tried to tell

us that a Hillary win was not certain. Meanwhile, media said it was over for Trump. Nate was like wait a minute and many of us turned on him. I was pissed because I did not want it to be true. However, he was right when he said things were tightening. He was right when he said Trump had a shot. I will not dismiss him again.

[uponit7771]

32. It was s 2 person race saying Trump can win isn't stepping out on a big limb

[regnaD kciN]

19. So, are we saying...

...that it's nothing but pro-Trump propaganda to mention the possibility that he might lose the popular vote and still win the electoral vote? Because that's never happened before...

[NewsCenter28]

21. I could see this post if the race was 3, 4, 5 points right now

But there was really no need for Nate to post this equivocation or musing when Biden is near a double digit lead right now if not at it. Further, what shifted in the race TODAY for Nate to be musing about a photo finish and a Trump EC victory?

Let me ask you this, if I came here on DU right now and posted what he did. If I said that the polls aren't as accurate this year as they were in 2004, 2008 or 2012 (what is his empiric evidence that the polls this year aren't accurate?) that most people aren't even paying attention to the race, and that if the race is close, Trump will win the EC, at the very least my motivation would be questioned and people would be clamoring for my tombstoning. I'd be called a concern troll at best.

As far as COVID goes, he downplayed the chances for a spike with the states re-opening. He said the states could re-open back in May and that the most likely scenario was that cases would stay at 15,000 to 20,000 as they were after the tri-state area flattened their curve. WTF??

[still_one]

25. Most of the polls represent registered voters, not likely voters, and there are still 9 to 11%

undecided in those polls, and that is enough to change the outcome

Barr has made it clear today that he would not hesitate to interfere withe election, not unlike a Comey stunt

[ProfessorGAC]

40. Gallup, Rasmussen, & Pew Use Likely Voters

Not sure how many other major polls do, but these three are using likely voters.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. That COVID summary was stupid

I had no idea Nate said that stuff.

The election stuff I can understand because either side winning the popular vote by a large margin is not a common occurrence. The margin is far more likely to decrease than increase. If it decreases enough then Trump has a chance because it's not impossible he could lose the popular vote by 3 or slightly higher, and still win the electoral college. If the popular vote were 50/50 with the electoral college then Nate would not be so hesitant on Biden's chances.

This is still a future book. That is Nate's perspective and as a gambler I acknowledge it. 100 days is like beginning to end of the college football regular season.

[Amishman]

37. The covid stuff turned out wrong, but it wasn't stupid

He based it on the slow reopening done elsewhere. He based it on data sets that didn't account for half of Americans acting like idiots. Not just conservatives being stupid too, that Philly block party video sticks in my mind and I know there are many others like it.

[uponit7771]

33. The accuracy comment is like WTF Nate?!?!

[RobinA]

47. You Would Be Called

a concern troll, and the people calling you that would be wrong. People who call other posters concern trolls just can't tolerate hearing the possibility that what they want to happen might not happen.

[Celerity]

22. +100000

[still_one]

24. He isn't saying anything that we aren't aware of. The election is still a long way off and a lot

can happen.

The most important thing we have to do is get the vote out, and push people to vote early, and by mail where they can

The republicans are going to do everything in their power to suppress the vote. They have already started that process in the critical swing states by trying to limit the number of polling places in Democratic districts, trying to eliminate voting by mail, and other tactics

If the election is extremely close in those swing states, it is going to be tough because of the electoral college

There is nothing Silver has said that is incorrect

We should heed his warning and insure we get the vote out

Anyone watching Barr’s testimony should realize what we are up against, and take appropriate steps

[BamaRefugee]

29. I've voted Democratic since 1970, and I don't see anything wrong with that tweet.

All trump has to do is make sure there is unrest and his troops in the streets of big Dem-leaning cities in crucial swing states, so people can’t get to the polls.

And that’s just thinking inside the box, something “unprecedented” is lurking out there.

[uponit7771]

34. No explanation of why polling accuracy is worse 10 yrs later or why he's accepting such sloppiness

[Happy Hoosier]

44. He's talked about it many times before.

This isn't something new. He has talked extensively about about how polling has changed in the wireless digital age. How polling has adapted, and where it still has problems. He's not a pollster. He's an analyst.

[BamaRefugee]

48. One big reason is that the PEOPLE BEING POLLED have changed. Polling isn't serious to most folks

anymore. They've learned over the years to treat it like a game, and they LOVE to throw curveballs to "fake media" by giving false answers, especially exit polls, to throw that night's TV extravaganza into confusion.

[uponit7771]

49. No, FB has affair probability down to 90% from postings. The data is out there, I

... I worked for a large search firm they can calculate what individuals eat for breakfast daily.

Humans don't have that many unique patterns as a device

[BamaRefugee]

50. There is NO DATA AVAILABLE about this election until November 4th.

Can you give me a heads up on the correct probability of a pandemic in March 2020 from your search firm back in 2019?
Or maybe let us all know what bizarre events still lie ahead before November 3rd from Facebook's geniuses?
Much appreciated.

[uponit7771]

51. Yes I can, Bill Gates did that himself. There was no calculating an uncontrolled pandemic....

... cause a literally mentally deranged leadership

There is already data about the human patterns when it comes to elections, polling science has been established for years and it's a science not an art.

When the polls are that far off like I 16 the deltas need to be explained and Silvers hasn't called for that.

Fienstien should be senator, by all data and none of the polling establishment has gotten down into granular how that was missed

[BamaRefugee]

52. But elections don't happen in a sterile, event-free vacuum!

[uponit7771]

53. We agree, but Silver needs to ... MAKE ... the polling firms explain the delta's and Secret ...

... vote for Trump is bullshit.

That's the excuse worked before we had 13423423 polling firms in the US and could get down to < 1% MOE a week out.

The polling science doesn't have to be perfect but the parts where its not on we could tell what happened to a reasonably high degree of accuracy but 16 was some bullshit.

The polling companies know 300% over performance in 3rd party candidates in ... ALL ... swing states is not probable.

[jorgevlorgan]

30. Even without a photo finish, Trump can still win the electoral college

Constitutionally, state legislatures can bypass the popular vote and install electors on their own that are loyal to Trump. This can be done without the governor approval in every state, including PA, WI and MI where the GOP has a hold on their state legislature.

[uponit7771]

31. Wait polling is less accurate now than 10yrs ago?!??

[Cicada]

35. Similar complaints in 2016 when Silver said Trump had a 20% chance of winning

Betting markets on elections aren’t perfect but have proven partial validity. Right now betting markets have Biden With only a three to two Margin over Trump.

Silver said that in years with big important events election results deviate more from poll projections. Silver says Trump has a chance to win. That seems logical to me. 538 also says Dems have a nontrivial chance of getting 60 or more Senate seats, also consistent with unexpected results in big event years.

Silver has a proven track record of superior electoral predictions. I wouldn’t bet against him.

[delisen]

38. Amazing that many Dems remain ignorant & overconfident

538 is telling the truth plus there is Putin and massive dark money waiting in the wings and ready to act in their own self interests.

Many Dems, Republican and independents are locked into Facebook and will be subjected to and fall for faked news and propaganda just as they did in 2016.

Ignore warnings at your peril. Do not shoot the messengers. Accept the fact that Gore won in 2000 and that Clinton won in 2016. Stop thinking that we are so smart it can't happen again.

If the many forces arrayed against democracy were as stupid as some would like us to believe, we would not be in the mess we are in.

[beachbumbob]

39. media roll is to throw shade at biden and democrats, so no surprise here, the WORSE

situation for media is an impending landslide as it lessens interest, veiwership and revenue

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Nate Has A Self-Interest

I'm not criticizing him, because he's displaying human nature.
But, for someone who does what he does, a clear blowout makes his expertise less valuable.
So, it's no surprise for him to promote and discuss the fringes of his predictive models.
If the center of his prediction is a 99+% chance of Biden winning the PV, and a 95% on EC, the discussion is not very compelling.
But, if you combine all the 3rd standard deviation outcomes and the PV comes in at 52:48 with a coin flip in the EC, there's now an interesting conversation.
His job is to discuss probabilities. As long as he has math to support that it's possible, he has something to talk about.
That said, he's not prone to tell us that the scenario that creates this outcome is one in a million, or ten thousand, or whatever.
He's doing stats and probability. People in that field avoid saying always or never. Or, 100% or 0%.

[Polybius]

43. However unlikely, suppose he's right and Trump wins?

Will you come back to this thread and apologize?

[kcr]

54. If you win the lottery, will you think that means the odds aren't that bad?

[Polybius]

55. Apples and oranges

Trump has a far, far better chance of winning in November than I do of getting even 2 numbers right out of 6, let alone all of them. The OP was a little harsh on Nate, who is non-partisan and a total professional.

[brooklynite]

45. It must be nice to live in a bubble where every story is positive...

What is factually wrong with his analysis? What makes him a "GOP Troll"?

[RobinA]

46. You Don't Like What

he said, so he's a troll? Kinda like the person who called me a troll in 2016 when I was worried that I was seeing an awful lot of Trump signs in my town. My town in PA.

[Polybius]

56. In 2016, whenever anyone posted that there was a chance Trump could win...

The responses were "thank you for your concern" or "your concern is noted." Hopefully, we ban those responses this time around. You should have went back in the thread after the election and said "Now apologize."