- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nate Bronze: The polls were pretty good
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:10 pm to John Barron
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:10 pm to John Barron
Polls that didn't over sample Democrats did fine.
0
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:10 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
stop with this bullshite
Why would I stop saying something I think is true?
When 9/12 of the big outfits were consistently ignoring Trump-leaning polls, Nate at least incorporated some of them, and his forecast switched to Trump well before most of the other mainstream outlets. He was also more upfront in arguing that it was essentially a coinflip at the end than those outlets. He was also likely the biggest proponent of using the PV margin as a metric that favored Trump.
Not sure why it's controversial to acknowledge that.
I think it was stupid that Nate didn't question his final prognostication when all signs were pointing to a sub 2% Kamala PV win, but I don't blame him for not just taking Atlas and Rasmussen numbers and ignoring all other polling (which nobody did, including RCP).
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:11 pm to the808bass
Yep, whiffed on this one. Thought the polling error would swing in the other direction, and it didn’t.
Ironically I missed because I didn’t follow certain indicators and took a big swing based on other data points that ended up not mattering much.
Oh well. I’ll try again in a couple years.
Ironically I missed because I didn’t follow certain indicators and took a big swing based on other data points that ended up not mattering much.
Oh well. I’ll try again in a couple years.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:12 pm to Pettifogger
He said to ignore early voting data. Everyone who analyzed the early vote nailed the election. Stop carrying this con artist’s water
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:14 pm to OBReb6
quote:
He said to ignore early voting data. Everyone who analyzed the early vote nailed the election. Stop carrying this con artist’s water
It's just bizarre how eaten up with him ya'll are. He's probably the least incendiary big player in this space who was, at worst, middle of the pack this time.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:14 pm to John Barron
Plot Twist: the polls were wrong in 2020 too — 2024 was simply too big to rig.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:15 pm to OBReb6
quote:
He said to ignore early voting data. Everyone who analyzed the early vote nailed the election.
You can get the right answer and still be using a bad method.
Early voting data was indicative of how the election went this time, not every time.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:15 pm to OBReb6
Went back and found the fraud’s article on it just to emphasize how worthless he is
So he was entirely aware of the early vote data analyzers and their predictions, and rather than just ignore them, he specifically went out of his way to point out why they were dumb and don’t listen to them. Even though they were 100% right
Nate Silver is a clown
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. So he was entirely aware of the early vote data analyzers and their predictions, and rather than just ignore them, he specifically went out of his way to point out why they were dumb and don’t listen to them. Even though they were 100% right
Nate Silver is a clown
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:17 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
It's just bizarre how eaten up with him ya'll are. He's probably the least incendiary big player in this space who was, at worst, middle of the pack this time.
Why do you feel obligated to interrupt our circle jerk if you are just going to post shite like this after a legitimate refutation of your contrarianism is made?
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:19 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Early voting data was indicative of how the election went this time, not every time.
Says who? Nate Silver? You?
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:21 pm to OBReb6
What specific factor in that article you just linked are you disputing?
There are actual numbers from 2016 that lead to some pretty big predictive errors. Are you just saying they’re…not real?
There are actual numbers from 2016 that lead to some pretty big predictive errors. Are you just saying they’re…not real?
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:28 pm to the808bass
quote:
quote:
A lot of them were pretty good
You definitely has a good sense of what was happening.
LINK
nawlins tiger is as dumb as VOR predicting this
LINK
speaking of which i guess VOR ran away in shame. what a pussy.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:28 pm to NawlinsTiger9
It’s not just early voting took into account
They (people who made real predictions on Twitter, there’s half a dozen of them I followed) examined early voting data compared to previous elections, looked at the number of party registrations in a given state compared to the past, looked at where the early voting data was coming from (like independent registration casting a vote in a rural area should be looked at differently than the traditional independent percentage skew assumed)
I can go on and on, and I feel like you probably don’t even know what I’m talking about because I highly doubt you followed any of these people. My point, and why I’m so aggravated about this topic, is people DID figure out how to analyze this and make accurate predictions, so the whole polling industry is dead and irrelevant anyway. But Silver made a point to write a whole article saying these people I am referring to had no reason to have faith in their claims, and he was wrong, and he deserves to be ridiculed. That’s how it works, the people who are right get the spoils.
They (people who made real predictions on Twitter, there’s half a dozen of them I followed) examined early voting data compared to previous elections, looked at the number of party registrations in a given state compared to the past, looked at where the early voting data was coming from (like independent registration casting a vote in a rural area should be looked at differently than the traditional independent percentage skew assumed)
I can go on and on, and I feel like you probably don’t even know what I’m talking about because I highly doubt you followed any of these people. My point, and why I’m so aggravated about this topic, is people DID figure out how to analyze this and make accurate predictions, so the whole polling industry is dead and irrelevant anyway. But Silver made a point to write a whole article saying these people I am referring to had no reason to have faith in their claims, and he was wrong, and he deserves to be ridiculed. That’s how it works, the people who are right get the spoils.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:29 pm to John Barron
quote:
Democrats consistently ignored the clues they provided.
Including yourself, Nate Oxidized Iron.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:30 pm to NawlinsTiger9
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:31 pm to John Barron
Hey Nate, we weren't coordinating with the Trump campaign like I think an investigation could find that Selzer may have been. I control the numbers completely myself, and they are 100% a product of my own work. You should probably retract that.
BTW, I refuse to pay to read this crap, but I'm pretty sure you're going to talk about the accuracy of polls on 11/4 and ignore the fact that they were manufacturing a fake Harris lead all fall (like your model also helped do by inserting additional leftward bias as compared to RCP). We, alone, showed Trump winning the whole time.
Also, funny of you to put this in an outlet that unfairly attacked the unbiased RCP just two weeks ago, which, BTW, was also more accurate than your projections.
BTW, I refuse to pay to read this crap, but I'm pretty sure you're going to talk about the accuracy of polls on 11/4 and ignore the fact that they were manufacturing a fake Harris lead all fall (like your model also helped do by inserting additional leftward bias as compared to RCP). We, alone, showed Trump winning the whole time.
Also, funny of you to put this in an outlet that unfairly attacked the unbiased RCP just two weeks ago, which, BTW, was also more accurate than your projections.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:32 pm to OBReb6
No, I know exactly what you’re describing, which is how I know it was a flawed method that ended with the right conclusion
You’re playing the results. Because this:
is still just an elaborate way of making a semi-educated guess.
Again, what part of Nate’s article are you disputing?
You’re playing the results. Because this:
quote:
examined early voting data compared to previous elections, looked at the number of party registrations in a given state compared to the past, looked at where the early voting data was coming from (like independent registration casting a vote in a rural area should be looked at differently than the traditional independent percentage skew assumed)
is still just an elaborate way of making a semi-educated guess.
Again, what part of Nate’s article are you disputing?
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:36 pm to weptiger
quote:
Bill Kristol, Anna Navarro, Bill Maher, Lincoln Project,l
Maher has at least been consistent. A Classical Liberal, a blowhard, and even a d-bag, but consistent...
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:36 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
all in all they told a story and that story was pretty close to the truth.
You are correct, of course, but a lot of folks on here saw the 5% margin on election night and have failed to notice that, when all is said and done, the margin is about 1.5%.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:40 pm to NawlinsTiger9
Well obviously I’m not paying him so I don’t have the whole article, but he didn’t say anything
This doesn’t mean anything. That’s not what anyone who looks at these numbers argues.
Did I miss where he made some compelling point? How about you post what part of his article you think is compelling and I’ll say I agree or not. I just didn’t see anything.
If you are subscribed and have full access then I’ll just consider that a total loss for you and the argument is then over
quote:
On average, the D less R margin in the early vote mispredicted the final Clinton/Trump margin by 14 points! Pollsters get yelled at when their polls are off by even 3 points, and anything more than that is considered an absolute disaster. Imagine if a poll was off by 14 points: no one would ever listen to it again! And yet we get the same frankly amateurish analysis of the early vote in every election.
This doesn’t mean anything. That’s not what anyone who looks at these numbers argues.
Did I miss where he made some compelling point? How about you post what part of his article you think is compelling and I’ll say I agree or not. I just didn’t see anything.
If you are subscribed and have full access then I’ll just consider that a total loss for you and the argument is then over
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News