Today's Nate's 538 2016 Primary Polls-Only Forecast: Iowa-Hillary-66%, Bernie-34%

[Alfresco]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/

[Sheepshank]

1. wow...this IS good news. n't

[randys1]

2. I do not see the 66/34

[Alfresco]

3. On the left side of the page there is polls plus and polls only. Click one.

[randys1]

7. OK, thanks...good to know for future use. This is chance of winning, not votes.

Which you know but I am pointing out to others.

You could lead 51-49 and have a 99% chance of winning, technically

The actual numbers are closer.

[enid602]

31. prank

66-32. Tomorrow it will 32-66. Thr next day 66-32 again. I thino the pollsters are having fun with us.

[riversedge]

30. nothing has changed per the OP link--Hillary still at 82 %...

The odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily.

Read more: How this works »

UPDATED 5:03 PM EST | Jan 15, 2016
L Iowa Democratic caucuses

According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has an 82% chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.
Polls-plus forecast
Polls-only forecast

[JonLeibowitz]

4. This means that when Bernie wins it will indeed be an upset and a very important early state result?

Or would we see prevarications then about how Iowa doesn't matter?

[Alfresco]

8. One can interpret the outcome as one wishes. :-)

[JonLeibowitz]

11. :-) n/t

[NorthCarolina]

5. 66/34???

Sorry, but I don't believe it unless his polling included only Hillary supporters.

[randys1]

9. Chance of winning, not votes. you have to look closely, lots here...I missed some too

[Alfresco]

12. Nothing to be sorry about. I post it here for informational purposes only. :-)

[Bjorn Against]

16. The numbers in the headline are not poll numbers...

These numbers are what Nate Silver claims are each candidate's odds of winning based on recent polls. Nearly all of the recent polls have the race within single digits except for one from Gravis that has Hillary with a 21 point lead. The Gravis poll is so far out of line with the other polls that it is almost certainly junk, but because it is a pretty new poll and Nate Silver is giving it a lot of weight which is certainly skewing the results here.

Bottom line is that Selzer which is considered the gold standard has Hillary leading by only 2%, Quinnipiac which is another highly respected poll has Bernie leading by 5%. If it were not for the Gravis outlier Silver's numbers would be a lot closer.

I would not worry about Silver's numbers, this is a very close race and Bernie has a very good chance of winning.

[NorthCarolina]

24. Thanks for the

explanation...it seemed from the OP title "Primary Polls-Only Forecast" that it was a "poll" to me but I admit I didn't click the link because the numbers (if a poll) were obviously incredibly off so I just discounted it immediately.

To be completely honest with you I was never worried about it as I am pretty confident that, barring any election shenanigans, Bernie will be the nominee.

[99th_Monkey]

6. Feb 1st, Bernie will have a late-night snack delivered to Mr. Silver

[Alfresco]

14. You think Bernie would stoop so low?

[99th_Monkey]

15. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course.

[winter is coming]

10. Wasn't this 82/18 yesterday??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511007051

[Alfresco]

13. That was polls-plus. I decided to post polls-only today. Follow the link provided, check it out.

[99th_Monkey]

17. Exactly, it took Mr. Silver exactly 24 hours to start back-peddling, just enough time

to hope some rubes would read his crap and take it seriously enough to change their
vote to "the inevitable winner" <--NOT.

[Alfresco]

18. Today's polls-plus is 82-18 same as it was yesterday.

[99th_Monkey]

21. OK.

fair enough. I didn't realize Mr. Silver had two different indices. my bad.

He's still full of crap, and his 'predictions' i predict are going to look foolish in
hind-sight on Feb 2nd.

I'm sure he'll have some equally implausible 'explanation' for it as well.

[Alfresco]

23. I predict your predictions of his predictions will be wrong. :-)

[Go Vols]

25. Nate Silver fared terribly in Thursday's UK election

05/08/15
Nate Silver fared terribly in Thursday's UK election: In his pre-election forecast, he gave 278 seats to Conservatives and 267 to Labour. Shortly after midnight, he was forecasting 272 seats for Conservatives and 271 for Labour. But when the sun rose in London on Friday, Conservatives had an expected 329 seats, against Labour's 233.

The fault, Silver claimed, was with the polling: "It’s becoming increasingly clear that pre-election polls underestimated how well Conservatives would do and overestimated Labour’s result," the statistician guru wrote in the wee hours of the morning. (He also overestimated the Liberal Democrats' result by roughly 20 seats).

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/nate-silver-polls-are-failing-us-206799

[99th_Monkey]

27. Yup. Nate needs to send his crystal ball back to the pawn shop, for some tweeking. nt

[OilemFirchen]

20. Polls-plus is still at 82% today.

"Back-peddling" (sic) what?

[99th_Monkey]

22. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511011741#post21

[lunamagica]

19. K&R. YEEESSSS!

[Dawson Leery]

26. Hillary has a chance to shine on Sunday.

[Alfresco]

28. I agree. She does well in debates. I think Sunday will be no exception.

[lunamagica]

29. Her poll numbers go up after debates. I hope this thime isn't

the exception

[Qutzupalotl]

32. if anyone remembers to see it.

[Alfresco]

33. 1/16/16 Nate's 538 2016 Primary Polls-Only Forecast: Iowa-Hillary-66%, Bernie-34%

Today's numbers are same as 1/15/16.