Nate Silver gives Hillary Clinton 93% odds of beating Bernie Sanders

[riversedge]

Still looking good Hillary -keep up the good work.


http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/nate-silver-gives-hillary-clinton-93-odds-of-beating-bernie-sanders/22313/


Nate Silver gives Hillary Clinton 93% odds of beating Bernie Sanders
By Cara Harris | September 10, 2015 | 2


Nate Silver, the polling analyst of FiveThirtyEight fame who correctly and definitively called the 2012 election at at time when most other pollsters thought it was too close to call, is speaking up on the 2106 election – and specifically the democratic party primary nomination race. Even as much of the media attempts to paint Hillary Clinton as being in trouble and Bernie Sanders as having momentum, Silver says the polls tell him just the opposite. In fact he’s assigning Clinton a 93% or better chance of defeating Sanders in the primary race.

Silver’s latest missive serves in part as a defense of Bernie Sanders against those who are attempting to paint him as merely being the “Donald Trump of the left.” He points to several key differences in what they stand for and how they’ve approached the election, but he also points out what’s obvious to anyone who studies the national polls rather than relying on misleading headline soundbites: Bernie is behind Hillary by “about 20 percentage points in national polls that include Joe Biden, and by 30 points in polls that don’t.” In other words, her massive lead is still massive, and despite the massive media hype over the summer, little has changed in terms of actual popularity. He goes on to handicap the odds in both primaries.

[daleanime]

1. That's it, it's all over....

guess I'll stop working for Bernie now.





Have a great day.

[jeff47]

2. Yes, he's reached his final plateau. Again. (nt)

[Ron Green]

3. When this election stops being about handicapping and Las Vegas and ESPN and inside-the-Beltway

hogwash, and starts being about big numbers of people thinking about how a great nation should conduct representative democracy, then we may have a chance to pass this great test of 2016.

It may not happen, but it could. Will you do your part?

[SouthernProgressive]

6. "It may not happen, but it could. Will you do your part?"

Doing my part. Don't have much time these days but I sent Hillary some money. There will be local offices I support as well.

[Ron Green]

9. Well, IMHO your sending money to her candidacy is not what I was talking about.

Maybe you didn't realize that, but you probably did.

[upaloopa]

12. Big numbers of people in this country

care about the Kardashians and Facebook and who to text next and reality TV not Democracy.

[Ron Green]

14. That's why we may yet fail this test. They're gonna have to get away from Kardashians (and Trump and

Hillary, for that matter) and pay attention to how the system has been stolen away from us all.

No disrespect to your candidate, but her campaign is well served by the kind of ignorance you're citing.

[upaloopa]

17. Please explain won't you?

Here is the thing that gets to me.
We Hillary supporters are not unlike you yet you think somehow you hold a superior position on the scale of enlightenment.
You don't.
I admire your candidate. I don't think you will find many Hillary supporters who disagree with his positions. We are not ignorant because we don't support Bernie.

I wish you all could learn from his example in how to run a campaign.

[Armstead]

21. We don't think we have a higher position of enlightenment

But we disagree fundamentally on some basic issues, and we get worked up about it. And, those who have been around this block a few times, get tired of seeing what seems to be an endless loop of the same old stuff, and the same old results. And we're frustrated by what we see as a resistance to change.

Probably not a whole lot different in emotion tone and attitude than Clinton supporters who are convinced their version of things are "reality," and tell Sanders supporters to get used to it" as we are so often told.

[Ron Green]

24. "...how to run a campaign."

Last edited Fri Sep 11, 2015, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

This is the heart of the matter. Despite some of Bernie's supporters being over the top in their disgust of the conventional style of campaign marketing we've inherited, we must change this: it's got to be real grass roots, no more triangulating, no more lying.

[Jim Lane]

39. The "enlightenment" thing doesn't refer to DU, at least IMO.

Among DU members, I'd guess that the Clinton supporters, Sanders supporters, O'Malley supporters, and undecideds are all about equally well informed.

The "superior position on the scale of enlightenment" is out in the general electorate. The vast majority of Democrats know less about the race than does the average DUer. We're here talking about whether Biden will get in and would that help Clinton or hurt her, and out beyond DU you could find literally millions of registered voters who couldn't even name the current VP.

Among that group, Clinton has the advantage of name recognition. Even the ones who know Biden is VP are much more likely to have heard of Clinton than Sanders, and the ones who've heard of Sanders know a lot less about him than they do about Clinton.

So the point is not that Clinton supporters tend to be less well informed. The point is that less well-informed people tend to be Clinton supporters.

The good news for Sanders is that this gives him an opening. Since entering the race, he's gained in name recognition. (For example, in the Favorable-Unfavorable polling, the number who don't know enough to express an opinion about him has dropped.) As that's happened, he's reduced Clinton's lead.

The bad news for Sanders is that winning over the people who were for Clinton by default, not knowing much about any alternative, is the easy part. He'll certainly hit a point where the undecided/don't know/not sure in his favorability polling is only a little higher than Clinton's, and the odds are that at that point he'll still be trailing her. Then comes the hard part -- can he win over Clinton voters who are better informed?

[Garrett78]

40. Well said.

"So the point is not that Clinton supporters tend to be less well informed. The point is that less well-informed people tend to be Clinton supporters."

Polls that ask people for views on specific policies would give the impression that a large majority of the electorate would support Sanders. But millions of people, as you point out, can't even name the current VP. A far greater number haven't even heard of Sanders, much less know anything about his policy positions. A still greater number of folks are completely unaware of neoliberalism, neoconservativism, the relationship between trade policy and employment and migration, the revolving door between regulatory agencies and the regulated, and on and on and on.

And then, of course, is the role money and marketing plays in this celebrity-obsessed, oligarchic culture of ours.

So, is Clinton going to be the nominee? More than likely. If not her then Biden. But that doesn't really speak to the desires of the electorate. It speaks to the electorate's perception. It also speaks to the powers that be who Robert Jensen referred to when he wrote the following:

"No matter who votes in elections, powerful unelected forces—the captains of industry and finance—set the parameters of political action. Voting matters, but it matters far less than most people believe, or want to believe. This raises the impolite question of whether democracy and capitalism are compatible. Is political equality possible amid widening economic inequality? Can power be distributed when wealth is concentrated?

These questions remain unspeakable in mainstream political circles, even though the economic inequality continues to widen and the distorting effects of concentrated wealth are more evident than ever. The limited successes of the Occupy movement nudged this into view, but this impolite question must be central in our conversations, raised without sectarian rhetoric and with a clearer analysis of the foundational nature of the problem."

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-09-03/our-democracy

[Gothmog]

20. I signed up for the Clinton voter protection team

[SouthernProgressive]

4. I think Nate is being very kind to Sanders with this. nt.

[Garrett78]

15. Agreed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251584088#post10

But I'm not sure why there need to be so many threads about the odds for each candidate. Or why the moderators allow so many repeat threads. Every day I see numerous threads about the same exact thing with virtually the same exact title even.

[SouthernProgressive]

16. I know. I watched one poster put up five ops in a row on Clinton and her emails.

Three from well know right wing sources. At the same time, I like how the owners of the site put it in the hands of the members, overall. Unfortunately, membership can become monolithic and under these rules that means majority rule. We saw that with the suspension of bravenak, 1strong, and others. At least in this instance it is actually positive for the party.

[Garrett78]

25. There are simply too many threads.

I'm not talking so much about individual posters starting multiple threads, although that's an issue if the topic is the same each time. What I see is different people posting the same article, because there are too many threads for people to realize the article was already posted by someone else. The format here sucks.

[SouthernProgressive]

27. Can you show me a place with a format you like more.

I actually think this is the best format I have come across. That being said I don't blog much. Mainly read news articles. PM me a link if you don't want it public. I won't say anything about content as I'm just asking about format. Thanks.

[Garrett78]

28. Thom Hartmann's message board for instance.

I hardly do any blogging, but Hartmann's message board is much cleaner.

Part of the problem, I suppose, is there are just too many people to avoid repeat posts. But the format could easily be improved by, for instance, breaking down the forums further. A forum for the Democratic Primary is way too broad. You need further categorization.

[Garrett78]

38. Prime example.

And now there is another thread about how Nate Silver puts Clinton's odds at 93%. Why? Why not just post the comment in this thread when it was clearly a response to those in this thread who don't agree with Silver?

And there are at least 4 threads on how Clinton referred to herself as a moderate.

And every time a poll comes out everyone and their mother starts a thread about it.

And then there are all of the seemingly pointless (and simplistic and downright anti-intellectual) threads. "Candidate So-and-So is going to win!!1! Hip hip hooray!"

Sorry, but this place is a disaster.

[SouthernProgressive]

41. I just don't notice the issue.

I will check out TH.

[Disco Inferno]

5. After this guy kept saying that Bernie's plateaued a few times

I take his prediction with a grain of salt.

He's getting it wrong now, and he'll get it wrong at the end.

[FlatBaroque]

7. Yes! PLEASE keep up the good work. nt

[bullwinkle428]

8. 1948's version of Nate Silver : "Dewey Defeats Truman"

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Except...Nate Silver knows his shit

MATH

--------------------

Barack Obama may have comfortably won re-election in the electoral college, and opened up a decisive lead (two million and counting) in the popular vote. But here is the absolute, undoubted winner of this election: Nate Silver and his running mate, big data.

The Fivethirtyeight.com analyst, despite being pilloried by the pundits, outdid even his 2008 prediction. In that year, his mathematical model correctly called 49 out of 50 states, missing only Indiana (which went to Obama by 0.1%.)

This year, according to all projections, Silver's model has correctly predicted 50 out of 50 states. A last-minute flip for Florida, which finally went blue in Silver's prediction on Monday night, helped him to a perfect game.

http://mashable.com/2012/11/07/nate-silver-wins/#qGHlpGC3Tak2

[jeff47]

22. Did he know his shit the previous two times

that he claimed Sanders had peaked?

[Cali_Democrat]

26. This article?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bernie-sanders-surge-appears-to-be-over/

Wasn't written by Nate Silver.

[fadedrose]

10. Until Warren gives someone a nod

nobody's guess is any good....

[upaloopa]

11. This only makes good sense

As I so often here from the other side, it's the people who decide elections not the media.
I read yesterday on MSN that Hillary needs to start shaking in her boots or some such shit.
The media needs a horse race for ratings and ad revenue. But no body is really paying much attention to the primaries except us.

[Gothmog]

18. That number is about right

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. So...

[MineralMan]

23. I think he's right.

He's looking at it from a statistical point of view, rather than a political point of view. It's hard to see the stats any other way, I think, really. Iowa and New Hampshire don't even send that many delegates to the convention, really. They're not significant players in the nominating process. They're just early caucuses and primaries.

[AgingAmerican]

29. When you find yourself turning to Vegas oddsmakers for solice

Something is not right in campaign-land.

[HooptieWagon]

30. Nate is beginning to sound like Bagdad Bob...

With his repeated claims of Sanders peaking, and Sanders blowing right on by those 'peaks'.
At this point, Sanders has focused the majority of his campaign on the early states of Iowa and NH due to limited resources. He has risen to a statistical tie with Clinton on Iowa, and has a clear lead in NH. The Sanders campaign will be spreading its focus into other states, where PDA is already laying the groundwork. Sanders won't win every state, and ultimately his success will rest on how much money he can raise, how effectively it's spent, and how many volunteers sign up. 538's modeling doesn't take any of that into account. If the nomination were decided solely by who has the early polling lead, raised the most money, and lined up the most Super Delegates, then Hillary would have walked away with the nomination in '08. We all know what happened.

[GitRDun]

31. I think it's too early to put a ton of stock in Nate's numbers, here's why

We know Bernie resonates with white people (see NH and IA polls).

We don't know if he can build a coalition of other Democratic voter blocks. Right now as Nate puts up his numbers, Bernie has just announced a big commitment to South Carolina in terms of resources.

I think for me, I'll wait to see the poll numbers in SC over the next month or so before I make a judgement on whether or not he's gaining ground. If we see the same pattern of closing on Hillary in SC as we did in IA and NH, then I wouldn't be counting my Clinton chickens just yet. On the other hand, if Hillary's lead in SC stays fairly comfortable, probably something for HRC to celebrate.

I'm sure the 93% is fun for Hillary fans, but we're still just at the starting line.

[Vinca]

32. I've always said I'd vote for Hillary in the general if she's the candidate,

but she really is way too far to the middle for my liking. I'm almost wishing Bernie had run as an Independent so he'd still be on the ballot if she does win the primary.

[jfern]

33. He just pulled a number out of his ass

Just because he's OK with predicting general elections a week away doesn't mean he's any good at predicting primary elections 6 months away.

[hollowdweller]

34. I'd like to see Sanders win because he has been the most consistent but would be ok with either.

[99th_Monkey]

35. Someone needs to send Nate TYT's BERN NOTICE video

[PADemD]

36. Nate needs to step away from the screen and count the boots on the ground.

We had more people show up for our first Bernie meeting in July than our first Obama meeting in 2007. Three times the number of people who showed up for the Hillary meeting in June.

[frylock]

37. Anyone who has seen Nate Silver's NCAA bracket picks knows the guy isn't infallable..

And of course, 538's multiple predictions of Sanders having plateaued shows that Nate needs to smack his game up.

[arely staircase]

42. Seems a bit low. nt

[TheFarS1de]

43. He may have to revise that figure ...

http://news.yahoo.com/democrat-sanders-gaining-front-runner-clinton-2016-presidential-200427456.html

the gap is closing .