The statistician remarked that we are back on track for a tossup election.
    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      361·
      3 months ago

      So the model image you posted above there says it’s more likely that Trump wins the election than it is flipping two heads in a row while flipping a coin. This is saying it’s less likely for Trump to win than Hillary to win, but something that could fairly easily happen still. These aren’t poll numbers, where 70-30 would be a massive blow out. This is a 30% chance of winning for Trump, closer to a coin flip than a sure thing.

      A lot of other models were saying something ridiculous like Clinton had 95% chance to win or something. Nate Silver’s model seems better than others based on this, if anything.

      • commandar@lemmy.world
        34·
        3 months ago

        A lot of other models were saying something ridiculous like Clinton had 95% chance to win or something. Nate Silver’s model seems better than others based on this, if anything.

        The constant attacks on how 538’s model performed in 2016 says more about statistics literacy than it does about the model.

        There is plenty to criticize Nate Silver for. Take your pick. Personally, the political nihilism that’s increasingly flirted with “anti-woke” sentiment is good enough for me. Some people might prefer taking issue with the degenerate gambling. The guy has pumped out plenty of really dumb hot takes over the years, so you have your options.

        But his models, historically, have performed relatively well if you understand that they’re models and not absolute predictors.

        • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          111·
          3 months ago

          People forget that Clinton lost because of Comey’s October revelation that the FBI was reopening the investigation into her emails.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
            51·
            3 months ago

            I was assured for a solid 7 years that it was solely the fault of everyone who was even the slightest bit disappointed about the primaries.

        • showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website
          4·
          3 months ago

          I agree with your take on the old 538 model, but if you read Nate’s new substack it become pretty clear that he’s been ‘captured’. Almost all of his post seem to fairly anti-Harris in their biases and it feels like all of his writings are really meant for one person, that person being the owner of Polymarket who he has a very large consulting contract. What these biases are doing to the Model I don’t know but the new model at 538 which was built from the ground up by other statisticians consistently trends about 10-20% higher odds for Harris taking the election.

          • commandar@lemmy.world
            3·
            3 months ago

            Oh, I don’t disagree at all.

            Like I said, Nate’s definitely increasingly treaded into questionable territory in the past few years and I don’t have a sense for whether it’s impacted the model since I’ve honestly not been paying close attention to the horse race this cycle.

            I was mostly pointing out that while the dude has almost always been a bad take generator, the 2016 model very arguably outperformed its contemporaries despite the popular view that they blew it. I wouldn’t be shocked if Nate’s sponsors and general ideological drift has impacted the model this cycle (*especially given Peter Thiel’s involvement), but I don’t have a strong sense for whether that’s the case either. I also wouldn’t be particularly surprised if he sufficiently separated the stats from the dumb ideas to produce a reasonable model either. I just don’t have enough info to have formed an opinion there.

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 months ago

          Looking at the historical election wins where president with lower popular vote won, trump clearly is outlier and either had outrageous luck (I doubt it) or help to push things just enough to get enough EC votes.

          Of course this help, that he got in 2016 he still is getting right now so we should still assume odds will be in his favor and make won’t get suspended and vote (the more people vote, the harder is to artificially affect the results).

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        4·
        3 months ago

        I think Silver. Nate left FiveThirtyEight and now the site doesn’t even publish any kind of predictive model.

          • showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website
            4·
            3 months ago

            Nate left 538 about a year ago. He now publishes his own SubStack for subscription and does a lot of consulting, notably including a hefty contract with Peter Theil the well know billionaire and right wing power broker who pushed JD Vance to be the Vice Presidential candidate for Trump

          • realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.clubOPEnglish
            53·
            3 months ago

            I think it’s more than ABC News fired Nate and most people involved with FiveThirtyEight. Happened awhile ago, at least a year or two ago.

            • ccunning@lemmy.world
              2·
              3 months ago

              I looked it up. Looks like he were with 538 from 2008-2023.

              So to answer your original question, “It’s from 538 while Nate was still there” but I couldn’t say how directly involved he was with the models that backed this image from 2016. My assumption is that he would have been fairly deeply involved in the models though.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                2·
                3 months ago

                He founded 538, and was the primary person behind the models while he was there. Got passed around between the New York Times and ESPN and ABC.

                He took the model with him when he left.

                As another poster mentions, there is plenty to criticize him over. I’m not even sure about the model anymore, but it’s not totally out of line from other models, either.

  • Zerlyna@lemmy.worldEnglish
    271·
    3 months ago

    I keep trying to reframe it to people that I am happy to spend an extra $2 on a tank of gas if it means not having a convicted rapist who sows division and hate as a role model for my 12 year old niece.

    And then add in that I’m an international buyer and can confirm EVERYONE globally is paying more since COVID. And tariffs ARE passed on to the consumer.

    I’ve slowed down my own postings and now responding to my conservative friends political posts, hoping it gets to more of those people.

    • cheeseandrice@lemm.ee
      171·
      3 months ago

      Sorry to focus on this point but gas is subject to a fairly fluid global market. I’ve been driving a car since Clinton and have never noticed Republicans being better for gas prices or the price of anything, if anything it’s the opposite.

        • mkwt@lemmy.world
          51·
          3 months ago

          The President can do a lot of macro things that affect oil supply, like exercising some control over leases in public land, choosing to regulate or deregulate fracking, or invading a foreign country to obtain more oil.

          In a more micro scale the President has fairly direct control over the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and can decide when to release and when to replenish.

  • Nollij@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    11·
    3 months ago

    Why are we looking to a Newsweek article about Nate’s blog, instead of the blog post directly?

    Last update: 9:30 a.m., Friday, September 20. The theme of the week remains mostly strong state polls for Kamala Harris, like this batch from Morning Consult, which helped her even though Morning Consult has consistently shown some of her better numbers.

    Indeed, today marks the 3rd time so far in the election that the streams have crossed in the forecast — Harris is technically the favorite in the model for the first time since Aug. 28 — but the race is a toss-up and that will happen a lot when the forecast is so close to 50/50.

    Source

    Note that these margins are still razor thin. Voter turnout (and related factors) will be absolutely critical to the final results.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    6·
    3 months ago

    I have full confidence she’ll win the votes necessary. I have less confidence in GOP and MAGA operatives not pulling out all the stops to ensure Trump wins on a technicality. They WILL attempt a steal!

      • Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works
        117·
        3 months ago

        No. Per their post, they already have it in their mind that he will “steal” it, so even if it was an absolute landslide and there was no funny business to be heard of, he cheated.

        Now That’s What I Call Democracy™!!! Vol. 47

        You see, there is only ever fraud if your candidate loses.

        P.S. I will not be voting for Trump in the coming election. I just know you will dismiss me as a “MAGAt Ultra Trumpetearista” or whatever other name is popular now for it.

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          51·
          3 months ago

          I said they’ll attempt a steal. Doesn’t mean they’ll be successful or they wouldn’t win without it. And I will accept the result in that I’m not going to storm Congress over it.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    71·
    3 months ago

    Oh does he? Does he “issue ‘good news’” then? Oh.

    Can he also bite my shiny metal ass?

    • RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world
      52·
      3 months ago

      This bot shouldn’t be able to call itself a “fact checker” when it doesn’t check any facts from the articles it replies to. It just spams its own bias opinion about what bias the website has in general.

      You are a spam bot. Lemmy would be better off without you.

      • Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        31·
        3 months ago

        Just so you know, Lemmy has an option in every person’s account to hide posts and comments from bot accounts (“bot” in this context meaning accounts that have voluntarily tagged themselves as bots, which is the case for the one you replied to.)