June 29, 2016

"This morning... FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the general election against Donald Trump."

"Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning the election, compared to Trump's 20 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast."

And here's Nate Silver's piece from May 18th, "How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump/Trump’s nomination shows the need for a more rigorous approach."

151 comments:

Yancey Ward said...

Silver's problem is that he cares about the outcome. I don't think he can, in the case of politics, break this habit. It the problem a fan might have in making bets on his favorite team.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Percentages like that actually mean something when they're forecasting weather.

David Begley said...

Mighty early to make a call.

And the pollsters were wrong about Brexit. Why should we believe Silver?

Original Mike said...

"Silver's problem is that he cares about the outcome. I don't think he can, in the case of politics, break this habit. It the problem a fan might have in making bets on his favorite team."

One should bet against your favorite team. That way, you win either way.

Brando said...

I'd ask to show his work. What polling is he basing that on? What fundamentals is he going by?

I think he's right, but not by that much--I'd say Hillary has a slight edge in this race but her weaknesses as a candidate will keep this close, and stray events could push Trump over. While Trump has been profoundly noxious and prone to stupid moves, I don't think it's impossible that he could control himself for a few months to let some smart adviser guide him through the rest of this and overtake her.

But I give Hillary the edge based on demographics, the electoral map, state of the economy and Obama's current approval ratings.

Brando said...

"One should bet against your favorite team. That way, you win either way."

My advantage in this is finding both teams putrid, so I don't have a personal bias to get in the way (though in 2012 I favored Romney but still thought Obama had the edge that year--gotta stick with fundamentals). I'm going to be using the word "fundamentals" a lot this year.

mccullough said...

Seems a little early to make any predictions. It's not halftime, as he says. It's not even the week before the Super Bowl.

n.n said...

Another G/oracle, another prophecy. The scientific domain is inhospitable to their trade.

Alexander said...

My own prediction is that the odds of Donald Trump winning are identical to those of another terrorist attack in a western city, with at least 25 deaths, occurring before election day.

I'm not going to count Istanbul. Not only is it an Islamic city, but terrorist attacks on Islamic cities seem to have the opposite effect: You see, Muslims are attacked by terrorists, not all Muslims!

In fact if I were ISIS thinking long term, and I'd ruled out doing nothing until November (which is fair enough, as they're a decentralized organization with operatives over a large area in charge of very low-time preference people), then I would be trying to at least focus efforts onto purging my enemies from my fellow Muslims.

Ann Althouse said...

"One should bet against your favorite team. That way, you win either way."

But Silver isn't betting, he's shaping the minds of others (and he's held back by the need to maintain his very valuable commercial reputation).

Ann Althouse said...

"I'd ask to show his work. What polling is he basing that on? What fundamentals is he going by?"

Silver shows the hell of his work. That's what you're supposed to go to his site to read. That's his business model, that you're going to want to read that wonky analysis.

boycat said...

All this tells us is who Nate Silver wants to win. Why does that matter?

mccullough said...

Seems more like he's trying to comfort Hillary supporters and anti-Trumpers. They have a hard time living with uncertainty.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

Drudge links to the same article. He has a a picture of a man who looks like he could be Pajama Boy's boyfriend- I presume it's a picture of Silver.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brando said...

"Silver shows the hell of his work. That's what you're supposed to go to his site to read. That's his business model, that you're going to want to read that wonky analysis."

Yes, but he didn't really explain his reasoning for this particular prediction--I don't see it on his site.

coupe said...

Senator McCain has said "I think it's up to every delegate to make up their own minds,"

Which begs the question, what was the purpose of having Primaries?

Sometimes I wish McCains wife would find him another hobby.

Anyway, this may mean that the fix is in and Trump will be given a chunk of coal at the convention.

Amadeus 48 said...

I have been thinking that here in June, before the campaign really begins, before the GOP convention where the VP choice will be announced, before the FBI's report on Hillary's e-mail has been leaked, Trump's chances were in the neighborhood of 20% to 30%. Nate Silver agrees with me! He must be really smart!

Yancey Ward said...

Althouse has it right- Silver is attempting to shape the outcome. The problem is that he actually has no power to do that. In politics, I think his reputation is way overblown. He got 2008 and 2012 correct, but then the outcome was exactly what he would have wanted- his political leanings aren't a secret. He is far less successful when Republicans have success, and he often makes last minute updates when the polls fail to move in the direction he wanted.

Look, it hard to let your biases go in making predictions, even those based on outside data. In that case, you start by discounting the data that doesn't show what you want, and upgrading that which does. A lot of Romney supporters/pundits did the exact same thing in 2012, including myself.

Lauderdale Vet said...

I paid close attention to things like this in previous elections.

No rules seem to apply to this one. Trump breaks everything for some reason. I'm not even going to try and figure it out. I am now only along for the ride, and will vote for whatever dog's dish I am served to ply against HRC.

I will vote for the most viable candidate available to defeat her. I do not want her leading our military, negotiating our foreign policy or choosing a SCOTUS.

Pride be damned.

readering said...

We know from Brexit polls can be wrong. We know from Argentina-Chile and England -Iceland you have to play the game. But if 538 had announced a 79 per cent chance of Trump winning we all would have said he's bonkers and where do I bet?

Achilles said...

He will post a correction in a few months based on "changes" in the race.

All of Hillary's trends are down. She cannot do press conferences. She cannot do debates. The more people actually see her the more they hate her. And the indictment looms.

Trump has found his message and supermajorities support those positions. In an anti establishment environment like this the dems couldn't have chosen a poorer candidate. I just hopes she makes it through the convention.

wholelottasplainin' said...

" I'm going to be using the word "fundamentals" a lot this year."

********

Myself, when talking about either candidate, or about Baraka, or even about Silver, I find myself using the common word for word "fundament" a lot.

Chuck said...

Vegas has had the same odds for a month.

traditionalguy said...

Polls are being treated as divination prophecy by the News Media. But the sample polled and the questions phrased can be used to generate any prophecy. They are no better than taking Tokyo Rose seriously.

Truman in 1948 had zero chance of winning according to polls. But voters responded to his honesty and to his fighting for them.

Unknown said...

Scott Adams said Trump would win in a landslide, he was trying to persuade the persuadable. Silver does this stuff for a living, his odds make more sense, but are almost unbelievable. I'd say more like 60/40 Clinton/Trump.

Brando said...

"Look, it hard to let your biases go in making predictions, even those based on outside data. In that case, you start by discounting the data that doesn't show what you want, and upgrading that which does. A lot of Romney supporters/pundits did the exact same thing in 2012, including myself."

In normal elections where I prefer one side, I tend to be bearish on my predictions (e.g., thought Bush would lose in both elections, and thought McCain and Romney would lose) as a way to keep my hopes from getting too high. And all of the elections since the '90s have been rather close--single digit margins, and a few states making the difference electorally. So a few things have to be taken for a given:

1) People tend to stay with their party preferences, so expect this one to be closer than most predictions show right now.

2) Fundamentals (yes, using it again!) still matter so look at job and GDP growth numbers over the next couple months. With a close election, the number of people who will be swayed carry enough weight to make the difference.

3) The electoral map is bad for the GOP. There are simply a lot of solid blue electoral votes and not enough solid red ones, so the GOP needs to run the table on swing states. Going up against a well-funded team with plenty of ground organization like the Clintons--with Obama's help--means the GOP needs to be overwhelming in that area.

Taking Silver's football metaphor, this means that Trump needs to execute a nearly flawless offense and competent defense, and have some big plays pay off. It's possible, but that's expecting a lot from a team that up to now has not raised much money, built much ground infrastructure or even spent much time in swing states.

Every time Trump decides to hold a big rally in California or New York, his campaign adviser should rap him on the head with a newspaper. That is, if they actually plan on winning and not just helping the Trump brand.

Gusty Winds said...

But Silver isn't betting, he's shaping the minds of others (and he's held back by the need to maintain his very valuable commercial reputation)

The Professor is absolutely right. And Silver's prediction of any GOP nominee would have been the same.

Jack Wayne said...

I agree with Brando. I went to his site and found nothing. If you have a link to the hell of an analysis, then provide it.

mikee said...

She has the corrupt Democrat Party, the corrupt Media, the corrupt Hollywood Elite, corrupt bankers, traders, corporate officers, and the corrupt Federal Employees Union solidly supporting her coming reign of corruption.

I recall reading about how Nixon was forced by his own party to resign for a two-bit campaign spying attempt, and subsequent cover-up. How many orders of magnitude larger must Hillary's malfeasance become, to obtain anything like a similar result? Or is the Democrat Will to Power so strong as to overcome any and all bloated corpses on their pathway to utopia?

The only way for her NOT to win is if she suddenly quits on election day, before her votes (real and fraudulent) are counted.

Bay Area Guy said...

I prefer the RCP average over Silver -- although Silver is generally much better than your garden variety liberal political prognosticator.

The RCP average has Clinton up by 5 or 6, which sounds right to me.

But, if you look at the battleground states, particularly Ohio and Penn (the coal miner coalition), Clinton is up only 2 to 3 points.

I think Trump has a shot with Penn and Ohio. If so, he has a shot at the whole thing.

At least, that's my hope.

Brando said...

"I recall reading about how Nixon was forced by his own party to resign for a two-bit campaign spying attempt, and subsequent cover-up. How many orders of magnitude larger must Hillary's malfeasance become, to obtain anything like a similar result? Or is the Democrat Will to Power so strong as to overcome any and all bloated corpses on their pathway to utopia?"

At this point I'd be hoping like hell that the GOP holds onto at least the House of Representatives as I wouldn't count on the Dems to impeach her.

Brando said...

"I think Trump has a shot with Penn and Ohio. If so, he has a shot at the whole thing."

He's got to do better than that though--she leads in Florida, and if she takes Virginia and the rest of the Obama states Trump still loses. That's also assuming she doesn't pick up Arizona or any other Romney states. The Dems are working like mad to get Hispanics registered to vote, particularly in swing states, and Trump polls worse than Romney did with them.

That's the problem the GOP has--they need too many of the swing states to go the right way. It'd be easier if they had a solid candidate with real campaign infrastructure and turnout operation, but they're instead hoping this large mass of previously-nonvoting white working class men in swing states will save the day. Going back to the metaphor, this is hoping for several hail mary passes in a row.

tim maguire said...

It's risky to bet against Nate Silver. For all his cookie-cutter brain-dead liberal politics, he is the best in the business at this stuff. Still, I think he, and the Democratic establishment in general, is clueless about how to handicap the FBI investigation. Hillary still hasn't been hit on it in any meaningful way and I will need hard proof that there is no longer enough integrity in the American electorate to keep a hardened criminal who put her pocketbook ahead of the interests and security of her own nation out of the White House to believe it.

Hillary is more likely to spend the evening of January 20, 2017 in jail than in the White House. She is unlikely to spend it in either place, but it is an absolute lock that she is not the next president.

Henry said...

It looks to me that Silver's TV appearance is a teaser for something he is about to publish. This is based on the a sentence at the bottom of the page "FiveThirtyEight launches its general election forecast later today here" where the word "here" links to the politics page of the fivethirtyeight site.

Silver has always been straightforward about his model. Mostly it is about combining multiple polls based on their historical accuracy.

Michael K said...

"Anyway, this may mean that the fix is in and Trump will be given a chunk of coal at the convention."

McCain will be lucky if he does not lose his own primary.

There are dreams of stupid people like George Will who think we would survive and recover after a Hillary presidency.

And then there is reality. I don't know what is going to happen.

The son of Richard Russell, who wrote the investment letter I used to read, is living on a small farm in Oregon. That is probably the best plan for the next few years as the economy unravels.

shiloh said...

"Silver's problem is that he cares about the outcome. I don't think he can, in the case of politics, break this habit. It the problem a fan might have in making bets on his favorite team."

Most everyone in media cares about the outcome aside, this is totally not true. My main political blog from 6/2008 to 2012 was 538. Nate predicted the 2010 Rep mid-term "landslide". As a rule, he's cautious to a fault.

But, but, but he relies on accurate polling to make his predictions.

>

Part of his Trump problem was he thought Rep primary voters wouldn't be stupid enough to nominate a train wreck. And who knew the Rep deep bench myth was just that, a myth ie no discernible competition.

>

He may have also figured out that 41% is most likely Trump's ceiling.

>

"Silver is attempting to shape the outcome."

As for the self-fulfilling prophecy nonsense, how many undecided voters pay attention to political blogs. Indeed, most folks at political blogs are there to listen to/follow the choir. Plus Silver's accuracy is his stock and trade.

If Silver's predictions fail, so does his reputation. Whereas Althouse can foolishly predict a Romney 2012 landslide and proceed with no effect.

Trump has a 20% chance to win which means he could still win, but very unlikely.

The Cavs chances against the Warriors were zilch to less than zilch, especially after game 4, but they won. I digress.

>

Hey Iceland beat England in soccer, so keep hope alive ...

Henry said...

@Bay Area Guy. If Clinton is up by 5 or 6% at this point, she may well have a 79% chance of winning based on historical benchmarks. Silver is giving odds of winning, not percentage of vote.

Darrell said...

This is the kind of election where people will decide when they "pull the lever." Trump will win big or lose big.

Darrell said...

Of course you have to be a real idiot to vote for Hillary.

rehajm said...

Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning, compared with Trump's 20 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast.

Being complementary events what event(s) is(are) Nate accounting for with that missing 1% ?

rehajm said...

Silver said "both candidates have a lot of room to grow," but the only recent candidate to blow a lead like the one Clinton holds was Massachusetts' then-Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988.

I know where to get the Dukakis helmet- anyone have a tank?

Wilbur said...

Hillary's biggest advantage in a national election is electoral fraud.

Bobby said...

So, the cool thing about Althouse's tags are that one can follow the Nate Silver tag back to her posts on Silver's analysis and forecasts of the 2012 Presidential election. For example, there is this one and this one where he addressed the Pew poll indicating a Romney lead (and Ann suggests he's "ministering" to the NYT faithful), or this one where he analyzes the gender gap under the construct of a Politico poll indicating a Romney lead, or this one where he states the Romney momentum has ended, one commonality appears to be numerous Althouse commenters (many of the same names, if not the same persons) disputing Silver's forecasting on grounds of him being biased, his model being inaccurate, polls being wrong and concluding that Romney was going to win in 2012.

Perhaps this time Silver is really going to be wrong and you're all going to be right, but I find the irony somewhat amusing. This isn't to say that I think Trump won't win or that Clinton really has a four-in-five chance of winning the election, just that it's funny to me to see people reverting to simply refusing to believe what they're being told... Again.

Brando said...

"@Bay Area Guy. If Clinton is up by 5 or 6% at this point, she may well have a 79% chance of winning based on historical benchmarks. Silver is giving odds of winning, not percentage of vote."

Considering this, isn't "79% chance of winning" a bit of a cop-out? No matter what happens, you can say your odds accounted for it. On the other hand, predicting a win by 5% can at least be tested with the end result.

"Trump will win big or lose big."

We'll see--I still think partisan loyalty will keep this from being a blowout election either way. Lots of discussion day after the election, either way!

"Of course you have to be a real idiot to vote for Hillary."

I can't imagine voting for either of them, but then considering the choices I can't really fault anyone anymore.

"I know where to get the Dukakis helmet- anyone have a tank?"

Fun fact--one of the partners at my old law firm had worked on the Dukakis campaign and actually has that helmet in his office.

"Being complementary events what event(s) is(are) Nate accounting for with that missing 1% ?"

He's got to leave room for a new constitutional convention abolishing the presidency by then.

Paul Snively said...

If you want insight into how Nate Silver does what he does, why not read his book on the subject?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

In terms of shaping, saw what you did by burying the Scott Adams bombshell into the Hope Hicks post. That's New York Times level of play!

Brando said...

"Perhaps this time Silver is really going to be wrong and you're all going to be right, but I find the irony somewhat amusing. This isn't to say that I think Trump won't win or that Clinton really has a four-in-five chance of winning the election, just that it's funny to me to see people reverting to simply refusing to believe what they're being told... Again."

Good point--generally, I respect Silver because he seems to be more interested in getting it right than in shilling for a candidate (I read somewhere that his politics were more "disinterested libertarian who cares more about sports than politics") and does more to analyze the weight the polls than anything else. He's often predicted GOP wins (like in the midterms) and gotten those right. And as for the GOP primary this year, I don't think his mistake was so much "I hate Trump so can't imagine anyone voting for him" as it was "Trump's lead was due to the fractured field and GOP voters tend to be very conservative and very establishment".

In any case, the Romney election is a lesson that right-leaners should learn from--if your guy is losing, try and figure out why rather than assume the evidence is all biased and wrong. The election night Karl Rove antics were embarrassing.

campy said...

Silver has it right. Hillary is going to be our new ruler. No power on Earth can prevent it.

(And Wilbur at 11:32 above is also right.)

Ann Althouse said...

I meant to write

Shows the hell out of his work....

Ann Althouse said...

20% chance is worse odds than Russian roulette.

Not safe for those who think Trump will kill us.

Brando said...

"Silver has it right. Hillary is going to be our new ruler. No power on Earth can prevent it."

Silver's not even going that far. Anyone can say "X% of this person winning, Y% of that person winning" because even if you have a 1% chance of winning, and you win, the prediction is still correct.

I have a 99% chance of coaching an NFL team to the Super Bowl next year. When it doesn't happen, I can say it must be that pesky 1% chance. These stats are untestable.

Brando said...

"Not safe for those who think Trump will kill us."

Trump isn't going to kill us any more than Hillary will. They're just each going to drive this country deeper into debt in their own way.

MikeR said...

What Silver says is very reasonable, as he usually is. Trump is well behind in various polls. But - FBI. Or something else. Clinton is vulnerable in a lot of surprising directions. If Silver had said 100:1 odds against Trump I would have said that he's insane. 4:1 doesn't sound unreasonable.
But as far as I'm concerned the FBI investigation is a total wild card and has the potential to just explode the election. I just don't know how to put odds on it; it has absolutely nothing to do with polls and Silver probably has no way to take it into account.

Michael K said...

"But as far as I'm concerned the FBI investigation is a total wild card "

Agreed. Such an event might even shake shiloh's confidence,

My daughter, who is a lefty but an FBI agent, told me there was no way she was voting for Hillary. I think there is an FBI grapevine.

Interesting times.

tim in vermont said...

So Hillary is hearing "dog whistles." No surprising. "Arf Arf Arf" - Hillary Clinton.

Joe said...

Asserting that a candidate has a 79% chance to win is completely meaningless, let alone in late June.

It Nate Silver willing to put serious money on this?

tim in vermont said...

So are Hillary's numbers going up or down? If she can't win with the voters she already has, she can't win, and she better not lose many.

Brando said...

"Asserting that a candidate has a 79% chance to win is completely meaningless, let alone in late June.

It Nate Silver willing to put serious money on this?"

What would it matter? Hell, I'll put money on my prediction that Gary Johnson has a 90% chance of becoming president. Then, if he loses this November, I can say it was that 10%.

I'd rather see a prediction of how the vote turns out. That's something we can measure.

Bay Area Guy said...

If a Chicago Dem (Luis Guttierez) is running for Congress and has a 29 point lead, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or Nate Silver) to say, he has a 99% chance of winning.

So, I'm not impressed with Nate's 79% guesstimate, which will change if the polls change.

Accurate polling is more important than Silver's odds.

I want Trump to beat Hillary. So, I'm biased. But a new Quinnipiac general election poll has Hillary up by only 2 over Trump. So, Trump has a shot, which is all I want.

gadfly said...

Gosh, someone has to agree with Silver, so I guess that is me. The Trump Trolls are crying over the decisions that they made to support a Hillary Clinton-like candidate to run against her. The Trump campaign is and always was emotionally driven. The unwashed were too lazy to see his lumps and faults and too deliberately uninformed to understand that the best Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan was on the same stage with Donnie. Trump's tweets and verbal assaults and untruths about Ted Cruz and his family worked - despite the fact that the Texas Senator actually had a plan to right the economy and to cleanup the offal from the Obama years.

I have also said here (because it has been reported) that key elements of GOP base, primarily conservatives made up of Evangelicals and NeverTrumpers would not vote for this mentally-impaired New York Liberal. So Nate Silver happens to agree with me - and so it must be Gloating Time - except it didn't have to end this way. 80-20 odds are staggering, yet the believers will continue to believe even after Donnie shoots a supporter on Fifth Avenue.

George Will got it right: "I left the GOP for the same reason I joined it, because I’m a conservative."

james conrad said...

This is just polling bullshit in late June, the polls don't really count until Sept-Oct. Everyone at this point is on vacation or thinking about their vacation, no one gives a crap about an election 4 months out except news junkies.

rehajm said...

This sums up Silver's horse race journalism

tim in vermont said...

This is like saying team A has X% chance of winning with a certain score in the first quarter, then team B runs back a punt and all of a sudden that number is different.

Even assuming that it were possible to do a disinterested analysis of the odds and how any and all events that may or may not happen will play out, this doesn't mean what many people want to think it means, or are afraid that it means, that events and actions cannot change the odds and quickly.

"Events, my dear boy, events." - Harold Macmillan British PM

Bobby said...

Brando,

Yeah, a lot of people don't like Silver's use of probabilities instead of predictions, but- as a fellow sabermetrician (and full disclosure: I have corresponded with Silver over the years starting with his days back at BP)- it's actually the standard practice for how we forecast things. In sabermetric modeling, betting can allow one to indicate how strongly the proponent stands behind a forecast, because the odds would reflect the probabilities of that forecast. The 79%-20% versus 90%-10% distinction would be reflected in the odds that Silver is willing to give you to defend his forecasting: that is, he should be willing to put up $79 against Joe's $20 (who only has to put up $20 to win $79, minus the house vig and all of that), whereas if his forecast were 90%-10%, you'd see different values of money being put on the exchange (typically, we use betfair).

For the record, I would not/not take Hillary at 79%.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Well gadfly, I am sure you find Hillary much more to your liking. I couldn't vote for her given her history of ham-fisted war mongering, peddling of favors, and her attacks on the victims of her husband's sexual predations. But I am sure you think that giving Bill an office in the West Wing, complete with interns, and letting Hillary pick her litmus tested 'justices' is "conservative."

n.n said...

The Law of Large Numbers is the Prophet's demise, and even then the chaotic processes (e.g. human life) that dominate our world will have the overriding vote. You could throw the dice, you could get lucky, but it is prudent to limit speculation to the scientific domain.

Bobby said...

Brando,

Also for the record, although I will be voting for Johnson, but if you're willing to give me 9-to-1 odds that Johnson will not/not be elected President (consistent with the 90% figure you threw out), I will definitely take that action, at any amount you're willing to do.

I know you were just throwing it out there, but that's how you know that the differences in a forecast's probabilities do actually matter.

Joe said...

Bobby, educate me; what is not/not? and what are the other possibilities for that statement?

Bobby said...

Joe,

Not/not is just plain not. Sorry. It's an old habit.

Brando said...

"Also for the record, although I will be voting for Johnson, but if you're willing to give me 9-to-1 odds that Johnson will not/not be elected President (consistent with the 90% figure you threw out), I will definitely take that action, at any amount you're willing to do."

That's a good point--I think if there was money on the line then those probabilities would mean something more. I'm no gambler, but in this case I'd give 55/45 odds in Hillary's favor, or maybe 60/40 odds in her favor.

Though what I'd like to see from Silver--who I think has a more reliable and sober analysis than any pundit out there (Dick Morris should move on to film criticism or something after his ridiculous 2012 predictions) is his prediction of how the vote will turn out. I think by August 1st we should have the info we need to make a fairly accurate estimate.

Brando said...

Sorry, I meant September 1st.

Henry said...

BTW, I was correct. The television spot was a lead-in to publication. Silver has now posted his election forecast:

Who will win the presidency?

He has Hillary at 80.6% vs. Trump at 19.3%. I guess that leaves .1% for Johnson.

Here is Silver's explanation of the forecast:

A User’s Guide To FiveThirtyEight’s 2016 General Election Forecast

Read the whole thing, as the man says. There is a very high level of disclosure here.

Our probabilities are based on the historical accuracy of election polls since 1972. When we say a candidate has a 30 percent chance of winning despite being down in the polls, we’re not just covering our butts. Those estimates reflect the historical uncertainty in polling.

Don't miss the "missing Johnson adjustment."

Meeeea said...

Wilbur and Campy, it's because of things like this I am afraid you are correct:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-meet-on-airplane-in-phoenix-video/

The fix is in unless enough people grow balls and work at the polls to be on the lookout for fraud. Granted, there is little than can be detected at the polling stations, but at least it is something.

And I hope Trump uses this suspicious story to his advantage. Article states they talked mainly about golf and grandchildren for 1/2 an hr.
Riiiiiigggghhht. And he was convienently in AZ (and hasn't it been record heat lately, and he has a bad heart?) and the he happened to be at the airport near her plane to meet her? Um hmm. I am so sick of the Clinton slime-duo. .

Unknown said...

OMG! Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch actually talked to one another! Treasonous! Tyranny! The Daily Caller, hahahahahahaaah.

Michael K said...

The unwashed were too lazy to see his lumps and faults and too deliberately uninformed

Hilarious example of why we have Trump. Cruz is a terrible candidate because he is almost as hated as Trump with none of Trump's appeal across party lines. If you wanted to see a Hiklary blowout, run Cruz.

The #NeverTrumpers are a pitiful lot of losers.

I'm not saying he was my favorite candidate or even in the top ten when the election season began. The problem was the Walker and Carly never made an effort to go beyond the old message which does not work in preset circumstances.

If only Ryan had done a few things, like get the House to write, debate and pass 12 Appropriations bills.

Then Obama would have had to veto 12 bills instead of one CR that would shut down nation parks that didn't even have gates and fences.

Ryan is all in for amnesty, which I assume of the Koch default position.

Fabi said...

Silver wasn't at his best this primary season on either side of the divide. I credit him for admitting such, but will remain doubtful of his models and predictions until he demonstrates better results.

Hagar said...

FOIA = Klintonite.

Unknown said...

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump across the board in a new poll of battleground states.

According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:
51% to 37% in Florida
45% to 41% in Iowa
50% to 33% in Michigan
48% to 38% in North Carolina
46% to 37% in Ohio
49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
45% to 38% in Virginia
Her leads held at nearly the same margins when Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson was included in the poll. And Clinton led Trump 48% to 37% when all states were factored together. With Johnson included, Clinton led Trump 44% to 34%, with Johnson at 13%.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/battleground-polls-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Unknown said...

Did someone mention Never Trumpers?

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/conscience-voting-gop-republicans-convention/2016/06/29/id/736306/

More GOP Lawmakers OK Delegate 'Conscience Voting'

Advancing the renegade option even more is a push by delegates to create a "conscience clause" that could free them from having to vote for the billionaire real-estate tycoon on the first ballot, according to The Standard

And that could spell big trouble for Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, whose controversial platform and take-no-prisoners delivery has fractured party unity.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker have all suggested that delegates should vote the way they want to.


The wheels on the bus are coming off...



tim in vermont said...

I am just curious, did Nate Silver predict that Hillary would be up by only 2% against DONALD J FUCKING TRUMP?

Why couldn't you fucking Democrats overrule your money people? I guess you felt that the winner of the "invisible primary" is your legitimate leader.

Michael K said...

Interesting comments on the WSJ site.

To the class of people who engage on Twitter, advise banks, or bet on outcomes, Brexit wasn’t just a bad idea. It was catastrophic. It operated as a rejection of an ideal that transnational elites hold dear, regardless of whether they are on the right or the left, one we might just call the idea of “Europe.” A rejection of this idea was not something upper-middle-class analysts could accept, absent absolutely compelling evidence that “Remain” was going to lose.

He calls it "The unthinkability Bias. "

I agree. The polls are pretty useless right now. Maybe in the fall.

Gabriel said...

I read the May 16th article and this jumps out at me:

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with framing our guesstimates in percentage terms. It’s easy to make weasel-worded statements along the lines of “Trump is an underdog to win the nomination, but we can’t rule anything out,” leaving enough ambiguity in that sentence that you can claim to have been prescient, whatever the result. Putting things in percentage terms is more accountable, especially if you want to test your forecasts for calibration later on.
But sometimes I wish that we had a clearer way to distinguish when we’re just spitballing from when we’re listing the result of a model or formula. Maybe we could use a different font, like Comic Sans?


How about NOT USING NUMBERS IF YOU DIDN'T DO ANY MATH. It's perfectly fine to use English phrases like "slim chance", or "more likely than not". It is misleading, and I suspect deliberately so, to say "2% chance" when you did no calculation whatever. The only reason to say "2%" when you mean "a slim chance" is because you are trying to convey the impression that there's all this math behind it when there never was.

tim in vermont said...

Unknown, tell us again why you are voting FOR Hillary. Oh that's right, you never have told us that.

Unknown said...

"Unknown, tell us again why you are voting FOR Hillary."

Trump.

Brando said...

""Unknown, tell us again why you are voting FOR Hillary."

Trump."

That's probably the reason most Hillary voters will vote for her, just as Hillary is the reason most Trump voters will vote for him. Each of them is the best argument for the other one.

Bobby said...

tim in vermont,

"I am just curious, did Nate Silver predict that Hillary would be up by only 2% against DONALD J FUCKING TRUMP?"

Silver doesn't do predictions like that- he does probabilistic modeling. You're upset enough to use profanity because he's not doing something he just doesn't do. You might as well get upset that the US Army isn't flying the F/A-18 or that MLB players aren't scoring touchdowns.

ndspinelli said...

This liberal shill has no integrity and a shitty BA. When will his 15 minutes of fame expire?

shiloh said...

"Agreed. Such an event might even shake shiloh's confidence,"

Having already mentioned Hillary's a train wreck, what kind of a train wreck does one have to be to be losing to her? Rhetorical.

My confidence, such as it is, is the systemic Dem electoral advantage ie Reps have to run the table. Whereas Dems can lose both FL and OH and still win.

>

But was a tad worried knowing Mike Tyson might speak at the Cleveland convention, but then found out it was misinformation. What a relief!

tim in vermont said...

Sorry Bobby, I guess I didn't convey my point properly, which was that Hillary is a horrendous candidate who is dropping in the polls against Trump.

Unknown has been instructed to never ever ever discuss the war mongering, reckless, vengeful, venal Hillary. Hillary's strategy is to hide out and hope nobody notices.

"Remain" was a %75 favorite. Just saying.

At least Shiloh was honest enough to call Hillary a scumbag. (I paraphrase)

Bobby said...

Gabriel,

"How about NOT USING NUMBERS IF YOU DIDN'T DO ANY MATH. It's perfectly fine to use English phrases like "slim chance", or "more likely than not"."

This I agree with. My guess is that- being in the habit of always forecasting with percentages derived from their probabilistic modeling- Nate and Harry continued to use that parlance when assessing the Republican primary, and the result was that it misled their readers into thinking their analysis had been derived consistent with their statistically-based modeling (which is what we expect from them)... when, in fact, as you point out, it had not. But I don't really know.

I guess if you want to assume that he's biased and trying to influence the election, that the misleading was therefore deliberate and that he's therefore going to do it again, then you can disregard his probabilistic modeling for the remainder of the campaign. It might make you feel a lot better than having to believe that maybe- just maybe- the statistics suggest that Trump's electoral success is not nearly as solid as his supporters would like to believe. On the other hand, this is what many Althouse commenters did in 2012 and thus their subsequent disappointment when Obama was re-elected.

Brando said...

""I am just curious, did Nate Silver predict that Hillary would be up by only 2% against DONALD J FUCKING TRUMP?""

You're referring to one recent poll, but Silver has long pointed out (before this election) that looking at each individual poll as though it means something is a waste of time. There will be lots of them fluctuating throughout the season, some showing a very close and some showing a blowout race, but Silver tends to weight them and compare them with non-poll factors (fundamentals!).

He did get the primaries wrong, but he's still got the best track record out there. Still, I'd like to see his reasoning for this current prediction.

Henry said...

@Brando. The reasoning is now posted at fivethirtyeight. I linked it above.

MikeR said...

' "Remain" was a %75 favorite. Just saying.' Actually, just as the British voting ended, it was more than a 95% favorite. You could have gotten 20:1 odds. Which is insane, given that the polls were basically dead even with 11% undecided.

Unknown said...

"Sorry Bobby, I guess I didn't convey my point properly, which was that Hillary is a horrendous candidate who is dropping in the polls against Trump."


Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump across the board in a new poll of battleground states.

According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:
51% to 37% in Florida
45% to 41% in Iowa
50% to 33% in Michigan
48% to 38% in North Carolina
46% to 37% in Ohio
49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
45% to 38% in Virginia
Her leads held at nearly the same margins when Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson was included in the poll. And Clinton led Trump 48% to 37% when all states were factored together. With Johnson included, Clinton led Trump 44% to 34%, with Johnson at 13%.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/battleground-polls-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

In what universe do you reside Tim? it ain't Vermont.

tim in vermont said...

This story is two hours old, Unknown

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Trump by just two points, 42% to 40%, a much closer race than other recent surveys have shown.

With third-party candidates included, Clinton leads 39% to 37%, with Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson at 8% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 4%.
- CNN

But I can see how somebody who could ignore the blood on Hillary's hands could ignore just about anything.

Unknown said...

"But I can see how somebody who could ignore the blood on Hillary's hands could ignore just about anything." Does that include Chris Stevens's sister?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/chris-stevenss-family-dont-blame-hillary-clinton-for-benghazi

CHRIS STEVENS’S FAMILY: DON’T BLAME HILLARY CLINTON FOR BENGHAZI

Dr. Anne Stevens, the sister of Ambassador Chris Stevens, has served as a family spokesperson since his death. She is the chief of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital. We spoke twice in the past three days, including shortly after the House Select Committee report was issued. Dr. Stevens recalled that her brother had been fascinated by the Middle East since childhood, when he dressed up as Lawrence of Arabia, with a towel and a pot atop his head. He served in the Peace Corps, in Morocco, before joining the Foreign Service, and he served twice in Libya before his final posting there, as well as in Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem, and Riyadh. My interview with Dr. Stevens has been condensed and edited for clarity.





shiloh said...

t in vt

Paraphrasing notwithstanding, never called Hillary a scumbag, rather a train wreck.

Please try to elevate your attention to detail. As mentioned was one of the first to call her an enabler, 2008, wayyy before Trump. Indeed, said some nasty things about her in 2008 at another blog when supporting Obama. She's flawed, but not the devil incarnate as many Althouse cons postulate.

>

Stating the obvious, if the economy tanks Trump has a chance. Otherwise he's DOA.

Carol said...

If you really expected the Republican front-runner to be bragging about the size of his anatomy

Oh, without any provocation, right? Other than all the lefty dick-size experts.

tim in vermont said...

but not the devil incarnate as many Althouse cons postulate.

So she didn't drag Obama into that "shit storm" as Obama calls it (google it) in Libya?

So she didn't arm rebels in Syria, exacerbating the civil war there and helping to precipitate the refugee crisis which has lead to the Brexit?

So she hasn't taken millions of dollars from donors to the Clinton foundation and made decisions as Secretary of State which directly benefited those donors?

Or do none of those things count as bad and anybody who focuses on such trivialities is just a con hater?

Brando said...

"@Brando. The reasoning is now posted at fivethirtyeight. I linked it above."

Thanks--I'll check that out.

"Oh, without any provocation, right? Other than all the lefty dick-size experts."

Oh, what is he, 12 years old? Someone mocks your hand size and you have to send him photos of your hands for decades to try and prove they're big, and bring it up in a debate? Because of course the guys most confident about their anatomy are the ones who have to keep talking about how great it is. The whole thing was more pathetic than anything.

tim in vermont said...

I am not "postulating" it, I am demonstrating it. You should probably look up the definitions of words you use that are larger than two syllables or unusual in any way before posting them Shiloh.

Matthew Sablan said...

Speaking of that Benghazi probe: Every time we do it, we find MORE emails and documents that were hidden the first time around. If any private entity had hidden this much information from government investigators the first time around, they'd be in a lot of trouble, as opposed to having successfully stifled the investigation and turned it into a political talking point.

Imagine if two months after the attack we'd learned that the administration debated whether Marines should wear uniforms while saving the ambassador's life, and had them change four times, instead of saving the ambassador.

tim in vermont said...

Because of course the guys most confident about their anatomy are the ones who have to keep talking about how great it is

Pays to advertise.

Brando said...

"Pays to advertise."

Ha, I guess. That whole episode made me feel sorry for him more than anything. It wasn't the sort of thing that a confident, cocky jerk would do, but more what a sad, pained man (particularly one in his 70s) would do if he never let go of his childhood insecurities.

Unknown said...

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/donald-trump-illegally-soliciting-money-foreign-nationals-fund-his-presidential

Donald Trump Is Illegally Soliciting Money from Foreign Nationals to Fund His Presidential Campaign

WASHINGTON - Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign committee is violating black-letter federal law by sending campaign fundraising emails to foreign nationals - including foreign politicians - in at least Iceland, Scotland, Australia and England. The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 today will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission highlighting this violation and demanding the agency send a clear message that foreign money is not allowed in U.S. elections.

"Donald Trump should have known better," said Paul S. Ryan, CLC deputy executive director. "It is a no-brainer that it violates the law to send fundraising emails to members of a foreign government on their official foreign government email accounts, and yet, that's exactly what Trump has done repeatedly. The FEC's forum last week highlighted how foreign corporate money could infiltrate U.S. elections, but Trump's fundraising antics show that the FEC must also monitor candidates directly soliciting foreign money.

"If the FEC fails to take action on our complaint, it could send a message that Trump and other candidates have the greenlight to fundraise overseas,” Ryan added.

"This is a strange and unique development that we have not seen before in campaign fundraising," said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. "The FEC needs to investigate how many of these illegal solicitations were sent, to whom they were sent, whether any illegal foreign contributions have been received and, if so, whether the contributions have been returned."

Matthew Sablan said...

It's a shame we didn't swat down foreign cash grabs almost a decade ago when the Obama campaign came up with interesting ways to go about it. I suppose we can fault Trump for being more blatant about it. It'll be nice to have a Republican near or holding power again so that watch dogs groups and organizations watch though.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also: This quoted Ryan is an idiot. Obama turned off verifications on his website while running for president accepting money from unknown sources. The greenlight has been lit for almost a decade; this is the first time a candidate was so blatant about it though.

shiloh said...

Re: Silver and polling

FWIW ...

SurveyUSA = A

Rasmussen = C+

PPP = B+

Quinnipiac = A-

Marist = A

CNN = A-

Gallup = B-

CBS/NYTimes = A-

ABC News/Washington Post = A+

Ipsos = A-

Fox News = B

NBC News/Wall St. Journal = A-

Pew = B+

Marquette U = A

etc. etc.

>

Obviously Silver ranks polling services quite often as it's his bread & butter!

btw, polling is a science ... if used/calculated properly.

Unknown said...

http://www.scotsman.com/news/natalie-mcgarry-publicly-rebuffs-donald-trump-fundraising-plea-1-4164192

DONALD Trump has been slapped down after sending begging letters to Scottish politicians asking them to help fund his bid for the White House.

The tycoon emailed Scottish MPs from all parties last week urging them to “make America great again” by donating to his campaign.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-fundraising-emails-foreign-members-parliament

British members of parliament complained this week that they had been flooded with fundraising requests from the Trump campaign.

"Quite why you think it appropriate to write emails to UK parliamentarians with a begging bowl for your father’s repugnant campaign is completely beyond me," Scottish MP Natalie McGaraff wrote in the email to Trump's son complaining about the fundraising emails. "Given his rhetoric on migrants, refugees and immigration, it seems quite extraordinary that he would be asking for money; especially people who view his dangerous divisiveness with horror."

Another British member of parliament, Sir Roger Gale, asked the House of Commons to address the influx of spam from Trump.

"Members of Parliament are being bombarded by electronic communications from Team Trump on behalf of somebody called Donald Trump," Sir Roger Gale reportedly told the Speaker of the House of Commons. "Mr Speaker, I’m all in favour of free speech but I don’t see why colleagues on either side of the House should be subjected to intemperate spam."

The Trump campaign has not responded to TPM's request for comment on the emails.

Michael K said...

"what kind of a train wreck does one have to be to be losing to her? Rhetorical."

It is way too early to be making any kind of firm prediction. First of all the probability of an indictment, or if the fix is in, an FBI leak of a recommendation for prosecution, is unknowable.

I also that nauseating piece by Robin Wright in New Yorker, is an obvious paste job.

It is clear, in hindsight, that the facility was not sufficiently protected by the State Department and the Defense Department. But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted.

Democrat talking point that had nothing to do with the 600 requests for better security in Benghazi.

The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself.

A lot of people wonder just why he was there. It had NO security and was dependent on Libyan contractors who ran away.

Yes! Definitely politicized. Every report I read that mentions him specifically has a political bent, an accusatory bent. One point that seems to be brought up again and again is the accusation that the attack was a response to the video. I could understand why that conclusion would be made, because it was right after the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. But, frankly, it doesn’t matter that that was the thinking, that night, about why the attack occurred. It’s irrelevant to bring that up again and again. It is done purely for political reasons.

Democrat talking point #2.

I assume the sister is a Hillary supporter and willing to get up and tell lies in the interest of the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT !

It's just sad to see this family used as the families of the other people killed were used.

The difference is he other families were not laying down for Hillary.

Unknown said...

So Chris Stevens's sister is telling lies now?? Seriously Michael K, could you possibly be a more despicable human being?

Michael K said...

"Seriously Michael K, could you possibly be a more despicable human being?"

I could be you ?

Unknown said...

You want to know why Hillary Clinton will win this election in a historical landslide? Because of people like Michael K. You want to know how Trump got to be the Republican nominee for President? Because of people like Michael K.

Gabriel said...

@Bobby:It might make you feel a lot better than having to believe that maybe- just maybe- the statistics suggest that Trump's electoral success is not nearly as solid as his supporters would like to believe. On the other hand, this is what many Althouse commenters did in 2012 and thus their subsequent disappointment when Obama was re-elected.

You're assuming a lot about me, that is not justified by anything I've written at Althouse or anywhere else.

Expressing your argument in numerical terms when you have done no math is misleading, whether it's done by someone who wants Trump to win or someone who doesn't. You are, at best, debasing the currency backing your opinion; at worst you are lying.

Nate Silver's actual math is better than most. But his opinions and guesses unsupported by any math are no better than anyone else's. And he is conflating the two by putting numbers on guesses. I don't care if he says Trump is 99.9% favored to win: if he didn't do the math, and he uses a number, he is deceiving us.

Unknown said...

No Michael K, you could never be me, or the millions of decent Americans who still hold the majority.

Gabriel said...

It's okay if his model says 99.9% for Hillary; if the model's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong and I trust that he did his best.

It's okay if he says "I haven't done the math but I feel that Hillary almost certainly has a lock", fine, but no one is going to put any stock in his unsupported opinion if they don;t already agree.

It is NOT okay if he says "99.9% for Hillary" and has not run the model. Because the only reason people listen to him is because he is known for those models.

shiloh said...

"It is way too early to be making any kind of firm prediction."

MK, we're talking American politics where its never too early for anything!

I firmly 100% predict Trump will continue to make an utter fool of himself!

I predict the Rep hierarchy/establishment is already making contingency plans for 2018/2020 elections on the likely assumption Hillary wins.

I predict the Reps are absolutely sure Hillary will be a one term president!

>

And now my Althouse disclaimer ...

Of course I could be wrong so don't hold it against me if I turn out to be an idiot!

n.n said...

The scientific accuracy of his prediction will approach one as the observation frame approaches a point.

Michael K said...

"Of course I could be wrong so don't hold it against me if I turn out to be an idiot!"

I would never do that. You are not a Hillary troll like all the "Unknowns."

They are incapable of seeing how caught up they are by the "Unthinkability Bias."

I am assuming they are being paid because nobody is that stupid.

Unknown said...

Michael K, Just like Trump trying to pander to Sanders voters. I'm sure that Shiloh thinks the world of you Michael K, lol!

Unknown said...

Michael K,
Your unthinkable bias is that Clinton could not possibly be innocent of any wrongdoing regarding Benghazi, but hey keep hope alive. Keep the investigations alive...for Michael's wellbeing.

Unknown said...

Trump speaking now, ah good to see him back to what he feels comfortable doing, talking about himself. The Vote Your Conscience GOP delegates are listening.

Bill Peschel said...

I don't think anyone can argue that the media's treating Hillary with kid gloves compared to Trump.

His negatives appear in the popular side of the news, which is where he can be mocked safely.

Her negatives are in the serious side, which means you have to explain to voters why she shouldn't have set up her secret email server and how she's collected hefty fees from her Arab and Wall Street backers. They call her experienced in government, and when you point out she did nothing as a senator and as secretary of state expanded ISIS's reach in Libya and fueled the refugee crisis in Europe, and they'll ignore you.

Trump gets mocked regularly in comic strips, Doonesbury and (I assume since I don't watch them) late-night talks shows and SNL. Hillary rarely. After all, how can you mock an elderly incompetent who got Americans killed and is in the pockets of the elite?

She hasn't given a press conference in more than 200 days. Think anyone in the press is going to call her on it? (I worked in newspapers 22 years; I know the answer.)

Media fraud. Vote fraud. The backing of our intellectual betters and celebrities. All she has to do is run a front-porch campaign where she says nothing but platitudes and she'd win in a landslide, god help us.

Michael K said...

All she has to do is run a front-porch campaign where she says nothing but platitudes and she'd win in a landslide, god help us.

I am slightly more optimistic. I doubt we would be seeing all these paid trolls if she were confident.

Gusty Winds said...

Unknown said...

Your unthinkable bias is that Clinton could not possibly be innocent of any wrongdoing regarding Benghazi, but hey keep hope alive.

She didn't do anything wrong, because she did do anything. They couldn't. Hillary and Obama knew those four guys were dead men, and any type of rescue would turn into another Carter style rescue the hostages disaster.

If they sent in Marines to rescue, Libyans would have been killed, the four Americans would have died anyway, and probably some Marines. That's why the discussion of the video lie/narrative took precedence over rescue.

Hillary and the State Department needed to provide the security that was requested ahead of time. After ignoring that, there was really nothing they could do when the trouble started.

Not even earn an A for effort.

You can't save anyone installing smoke detectors after the fire started.

Gusty Winds said...

Michael K said...

I doubt we would be seeing all these paid trolls if she were confident.

It's so obvious regarding "unknown" it seems rather complimentary to the regulars here. It's the closest I've ever come to being infiltrated.

Bobby said...

Gabriel,

"You're assuming a lot about me, that is not justified by anything I've written at Althouse or anywhere else.

Expressing your argument in numerical terms when you have done no math is misleading, whether it's done by someone who wants Trump to win or someone who doesn't. You are, at best, debasing the currency backing your opinion; at worst you are lying.

Nate Silver's actual math is better than most. But his opinions and guesses unsupported by any math are no better than anyone else's. And he is conflating the two by putting numbers on guesses. I don't care if he says Trump is 99.9% favored to win: if he didn't do the math, and he uses a number, he is deceiving us.
"

AND

"It's okay if his model says 99.9% for Hillary; if the model's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong and I trust that he did his best.

It's okay if he says "I haven't done the math but I feel that Hillary almost certainly has a lock", fine, but no one is going to put any stock in his unsupported opinion if they don;t already agree.

It is NOT okay if he says "99.9% for Hillary" and has not run the model. Because the only reason people listen to him is because he is known for those models.
"

Totally agree with you about Nate having a responsibility to articulate when he is speaking for results derived from his model and when he is speaking through personal intuition based just on his "gut feel"- the former has earned respect, the latter is really no different than what most other political "analysts" on the left- and right-side of the spectrum do. And totally agree that, simply by using numbers intuitively derived through a "gut feel" than from the model, it misleads the readers. I'd only add, however, that Nate made it clear in both his mea culpa and in his forecast explanatory guide that he was aware of that error, and presumably if he's being honest, he'd be on-guard in the future not to let it happen again.

As for your first sentence, my mistaken assumptions about you, I confess that I got that from your statement: "It is misleading, and I suspect deliberately so, to say "2% chance" when you did no calculation whatever." (Bold added for emphasis). Given the emphasized clause, I simply assumed the most likely reason why you would believe he "deliberately" misled readers by thinking his gut-feel assessment had been derived through his statistical modeling was because- as others have asserted- he was biased. In retrospect, I realize there are numerous other reasons why Nate would have deliberately misled readers into believing he was using his model when he was not: perhaps you think he wanted to get things wrong in a low-stakes primary campaign to lessen expectations on him this fall (the pressure was getting to him); or perhaps you think he simply believed that his intuitive assessment would be correct so no one would ever look into the numbers presented (he's lazy and/or sloppy); or perhaps you think he just thought it would be funny to mislead people (he's got vandal tendencies); perhaps you think he deliberately misled people for some other reason. If so, then you can disregard my previous post as it clearly would not apply to you.

Joe said...

Considering his/her irrationality and anonymity, Unknown is likely a sock puppet for the Hillary campaign.

Drago said...

Unknown: "So Chris Stevens's sister is telling lies now?? Seriously Michael K, could you possibly be a more despicable human being?"

Yes. He could be Hillary.

M Jordan said...

Nate Silver is passe. The new new guru of choice is Sam Wang of Princeton. He's a Democrat and loves saying how Trump will lose but he uses a lot of new kinds of numbers to say it.

eric said...

I'm pretty late to this thread and haven't read any of the comments, but I'll just drop this here.

I'm not seeing any analysis of the Dump Trump effort at the convention. Yet I hear it everywhere. I read about it on the Republican/Conservative websites. Radio hosts like Hugh Hewitt talk about it endlessly and interview delegates and rules committee members who are doing their best to try and get rid of Trump.

And yet no one seems to factor this into the polling. Today Fox News had a poll and on twitter all the #nevertrump people were advertising the fact that Hillary gets something like 85% of the Democrats and Trump only gets 71% of the Republicans.

And then in the same breath they'll tell you Hillary has room to grow but Trump is a known factor and has no room to grow.

Does it occur to anyone that his Republican support is suppressed because of a hope that he'll get replaced at the convention?

Hence my theory. He'll get a big polling bounce once the convention is over because then the primary will be really over and Republicans will be stuck with Trump whether they like it or not.

eric said...

Blogger Gusty Winds said...
Michael K said...

I doubt we would be seeing all these paid trolls if she were confident.

It's so obvious regarding "unknown" it seems rather complimentary to the regulars here. It's the closest I've ever come to being infiltrated.


I actually think they've been around awhile. Especially during the recall elections in Wisconsin. We're just on to them now.

tim in vermont said...

Unknown's defense of Hillary is like the drunk who says he is not to blame after he decides to get into a car and taking the wheel.

"Bad things happen!" is the drunk's defense.

"Whatever you do, don't look at my decision to get behind the wheel!"

"Benghazi!" shouts the Hillary troll, "Ignore the fact that Libya was a war of choice on the part of Hillary!"

chickelit said...

Has Nate Silver been right lately? If not, why the extra Althousian adulation? I mean, his error predicting Trump's primary flop should have moved him to the back of the line.

Paul said...

Scott Adams was right about Trump 100 percent of the time. He says Trump will win.
Nate Silver was wrong 100 percent of the time. He says Hillary will win.

Place your bets!

tim in vermont said...

Look at Qunnipiac's lead to the poll results above before you call it a biased anti-Hillary poll:

June 29, 2016 - Hate Winning, As Clinton-Trump Race Too Close To Call, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Neither Candidate Would Be Good President, Voters Say

Bobby said...

Chickelit,

In the 2016 primaries, FiveThirtyEight's polls-only forecasting model called 53 of 58 races correctly, and their polls-plus forecasting model correctly called 52 of 58 races. Is this really an "error" deserving of being moved to the "back of the line?" If so, what standard would have constituted "success"- 55? 56? 57? Only all 58? Who successfully hit that mark?

Michael K said...

"He'll get a big polling bounce once the convention is over because then the primary will be really over and Republicans will be stuck with Trump whether they like it or not."

And, of course, the riots and violence being planned by Soros employees. Soros must be really pissed since I've read he lost a fortune on Brexit.

narciso said...

steven's family was not informed, that there was a meeting convened to make a rescue of the compound, impossible, that was part of the reason behind the subterfuge, of rice and hillary,

Bobby said...

By the way, for those Hillary supporters who have decided that Nate's forecast means her election is now decidedly assured, I would point you to the penultimate paragraph of Nate's forecast report:

"A 20 percent or 25 percent chance of Trump winning is an awfully long way from 2 percent, or 0.02 percent. It’s a real chance: about the same chance that the visiting team has when it trails by a run in the top of the eighth inning in a Major League Baseball game. If you’ve been following politics or sports over the past couple of years, I hope it’s been imprinted onto your brain that those purported long shots — sometimes much longer shots than Trump — sometimes come through."

If there's two innings left in the game and you only have a one run lead, I'd strongly advise against prematurely starting your celebration, unless you have Mariano Rivera coming out of the bullpen (and even at his best, a two-inning save was not a foregone conclusion so you probably need Jeff Nelson to set him up)... And even Hillary knows she is not the Mariana Rivera of campaigning.

narciso said...

that's not at all clear, he probably shorted the pound as in 92, and allegedly after september 11th with the us markets, a real life le chiffre,

narciso said...

other outfits left out in the cold,


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/28/brexit-siemens-freezes-new-wind-power-projects/

Amadeus 48 said...

To all the Unknowns who are appearing here:

Hillary Clinton is a devious and bad person, who set up an easily hacked e-mail system outside normal government communication facilities and in violation of government policy solely so she could control what was produced in the inevitable FOIA festivities that are now part of public life. In doing so, she disqualified herself from holding any office of public trust in this great republic.

The Republican Party appears to be about to nominate a blustering, hucksterish promoter as their candidate for the presidency. Trump's many faults and weaknesses are apparent to all. However, he has not yet done anything so irresponsible and callously indifferent to the trust and confidence placed on a public officer of the United States as Hillary has done. The Unknowns commenting here can rationalize and trim and counter-accuse to the exhaustion of everyone here, but you can never change what she did when she was our secretary of state. She should never hold high office again.

narciso said...

perhaps but seeing as professional politicians have either failed to keep their promises, ryan mcconnell, or alternately procluded others from keeping there's, their is little choice,

Michael K said...

"you can never change what she did when she was our secretary of state."

They don't care as long as the check clears,

Mick said...

Well of course the authoritarian will be wrong. Trump wins in a landslide.

Brando said...

"Has Nate Silver been right lately? If not, why the extra Althousian adulation? I mean, his error predicting Trump's primary flop should have moved him to the back of the line."

Even in the primaries, Silver has been right in calling individual races almost every time. Where he made his mistake was in assuming (not based on data) that as other candidates dropped out, the anti-Trump vote would have consolidated. That's an error of punditry, not forecasting.

So while you can quibble with his opining where he's not basing it on any methodology, when it comes to his forecasts if you want to discredit him you should clarify where he's making a mistake with his data. So far, he has the best track record when it comes to that.

I'll note though that even Silver allows for all of this to change as the campaign moves forward--his predictions are based on how things look right now (and yes, if the election was held right now, Trump would be toast). But a lot can happen in four months.

Brando said...

It is a shame we don't all know each other personally so we could make a friendly (non-monetary) wager about this election. The predictions here range quite a bit, and while some are based more on wishful thinking than anything else, a lot are well reasoned.

grackle said...

In odds-making you are only as good as your last odds-making. Silver’s last odds-making, on Trump in the primaries, was shit.

A better day-to-day gauge is the Morning Joes. This AM they were back smiling and confident because some new polls put Hillary out front, not very far out front, true, but it got them all happy.

They should have looked at Drudge. The banner: POLL: TRUMP PULLS INTO LEAD 43-39. A key finding:

Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters.

The narrative is that Hillary gets more party loyalty than Trump but the above finding shows that for what it is: wishful thinking.

And I think Trump may be even further ahead. Why? Because it is a poll of “likely voters,” and Clinton’s likely voters are easier to find and poll than Trump’s likely voters. Thus any “likely voter” poll is going to slightly inflate Clinton’s numbers and deflate Trump’s.

Here’s a link to the Rasmussen poll.

http://tinyurl.com/z4q3c8s

What I want to happen:

I want the polls to slightly favor Clinton until after the Democrat convention. I am afraid that if Trump jumps out too far ahead before the convention that they’ll ditch Clinton for a more credible candidate, such as Uncle Biden, Pocahontas of maybe Tim Kaine.