Who to believe, anonymous posters on an interweb message board or Nate Silver?

[Cali_Democrat]

Nate Silver says Hillary has a 93% chance of beating Bernie Sanders.

Others are claiming that Bernie has a much better chance than that.

So who should I believe?

I think I'll go with the statistician who has a proven track record.

[jeff47]

1. Hey Nate! She isn't up by 20 anymore

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251585713

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. Unless he said Bernie in which case you would claim he is wrong.

[Juicy_Bellows]

3. The smart money is on a little bit of both.

Never fish from only one stream.

[Hortensis]

8. Maybe weighted toward HRC, but this is a craazy year. No matter what,

we need Bernie's supporters to keep him viable to the end, however it turns out. He's not only become a real candidate himself, and he's not only "pushing" HRC left as many hoped, but by demonstrating the electorate's support for his positions, his candidacy is enabling her to move more left from the expedient positions she's taken to make it to this point. That would a very good thing for all of us -- should she be the nominee.

Yes, she gets a lot of criticism for her many accommodations to power, including from me, but please consider this might just turn out to be justified by her amazing SURVIVAL to this point -- an awesome and very politically competent feat given the tremendous forces that have fought her all the way.

[riversedge]

4. Nate

[ibegurpard]

5. So believe what you want

We aren't kidding ourselves that Bernie doesn't have an uphill climb but he's closing every day.

[leftofcool]

6. I think Nate.

[Fawke Em]

7. You know it's bad when other pundits say something:

[LondonReign2]

9. I believe Nate. And I believe that if all primaries were hed today Clinton would win

But my my my, Hillary's downward trend is picking up some ferocious velocity.

[LondonReign2]

18. I would also be interested in what he thought Hillary's odds were in Sept/Oct '07

She enjoyed an even bigger lead then than she does now and we know how that one ended up. The current trendlines now look remarkably similar to Oct.07, except Hillary's descent is much steeper this time.

[Juicy_Bellows]

40. I think this time her downward trend is much more pronounced.

She kind of held steady last time, this time she's descending.

[oasis]

10. I prefer passionate posters to number crunchers any day. But

I can't argue with numbers.

[99th_Monkey]

11. I believe Cenk Uygur

[AgingAmerican]

12. So some polling dude is now her savior?

Anything but the issues, right?

[PowerToThePeople]

16. This.

For me this election is one of the biggest of my life. It is the one that tells me if I will remain American or become a refugee in another country.

[NorthCarolina]

22. Debating issues with Bernie would be political suicide.

He is, and has been, exactly where the voting public wants it's politicians to be.....Hillary, not so much.

For instance, how can she possibly debate things like Social Security against Bernie?

Hillary: Social Security is in deep trouble and we need to take serious measures to save it so it will still be there for our children and our grandchildren. Positive things like means testing; raising the retirement age, over time, to account for people living longer; and chained CPI to help curb unnecessary spending.

Bernie: What we need to do is raise the cap on income levels above $250,000 to insure solvency of the fund, and to allow us to expand benefits so that our Seniors no longer are forced to choose between putting food on the table or obtaining necessary medicine.

Or the Iraq War vote, she apologized for it, and admitted it was a mistake...but now she's getting all hawkish with Iran. Dafuq, is she vying for the GOP vote?

Take TPP as another. She helped to draft it, and bragged that it was one of her accomplishments. Wonder how Bernie will handle that in a debate (well, not really, I know how he'll handle it).

IMO, I think Hillary is toast, and post debate #1, she will likely be the one demanding additional debates.

[winter is coming]

13. Nate's already made some faulty predictions about Sanders.

This isn't a run-of-the-mill election with run-of-the-mill candidates. I don't think Silver or anyone else has a good model for what's happening.

[Juicy_Bellows]

38. I believe your comment to be the most fair and accurate. nt.

[jfern]

14. 538 has been wrong before about Trump and Sanders

They should stick to predicting general elections a week in advanced based upon aggregating the polls rather then pulling numbers out of their ass about primaries in 6 months.

[aikoaiko]

15. I can understand that if I were a HRC fan.

But surely you understand how Bernie supporters have been predicting the results in NH and IA long before anyone else.

Of course it is a long way to go to the nomination.

[Disco Inferno]

17. I may be an anonymous poster on the Interwebs

but I do happen to know Nate is wrong.

[OKNancy]

19. That old hawkeye is tuned in, huh? n/t

[Agschmid]

24. It sees everything...

[sheshe2]

26. Ha!

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. You are free to believe which ever opinion gets you through the night.

That's the beauty of this whole thing.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

47. Whatever gets

Whatever gets you through the night 'salright, 'salright

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Then I guess Hillary people have nothing to worry about.

In fact, no one on the fence needs to vote for her, because she's already got it in the bag.

Might as well vote for a candidate who will articulate some issues that will move the party in a progressive direction, to send a message, huh.

[mhatrw]

23. I'll go with anonymous posters on an interweb message board for $100.

Because right now, their guesses are as good as Silver's.

Numbers change. When the new numbers come in, Silver's projection will change with them. That's how these kinds of projections work. Math cannot predict human behavior months into the future any better than it can predict the weather.

[mythology]

30. But he actually understands demographics

Many people who are supporting Sanders don't seem to have an answer for how Sanders overcomes his demographic gap with minorities.

Silver has been accounting for that in his analysis.

[mhatrw]

32. He gets a chance to talk to them?

When minorities get a chance to hear Sanders' proposals, stances on the issues and legislative record, what's not to like?

[Rilgin]

25. That is not really the question.

Take the name and gender away from HRC. Then posit the following facts and ask if you would urge this candidate to run or if you would support this candidate.


1. Has extremely high name recognition but is viewed unfavorably by the general public in poll after poll. Such polls are usually a measure of name recognition but in this candidate's case, the candidate has been a very visible public figure for decades. The candidate has no issues with name recognition. Opinions on this type of candidate can change but are mostly established in most voters minds. The candidates favorable ratings have only been really good when the candidate was not running for national office. Since announcing that the candidate would run for president, the candidate's favorable/unfavorable poll results have not made any significant move upwards and in fact has continuously trended downward for months. Currently, months into a campaign poll results show that a majority of the American Public views her unfavorably and in particular as untrustworthy and one who is inauthentic.

2. Despite significant money and institutional support from the established democratic party is losing ground in poll after poll amongst democrats including a democrat thought to have no (0) chance of winning anything,

3. Has a bad relationship with the media and rightly or wrongly is the center point for more scandal attacks which are carried forward by the media. Almost all or all of the "scandals" are exaggerated by the GOP but are supported by the candidate's perceived public persona of secretiveness and a deal maker. Some of the candidates bad image for secrecy and not being authentic can be supported by her past actions

4. In the years leading up to this current election, was paid millions of dollars from wall street. Is not perceived as a common figure by either democrats or republicans.

5. Is actually losing in polls against republican candidates at this point. This is somewhat misleading since the value of early polls are debatable. Further, the prominence of the Republican debates have put the GOP candidates front and center with the Media (thank you Debbie Schultz). Further, there is a lot of negative media attention to the candidate who is trying to explain a past action that is somewhere between irrelevant to a full blown scandal. However, the candidate's name recognition might make these early polls more relevant and provide further evidence that the candidate is viewed negatively and does not excite the american people.

6. Has been on the wrong side of a number of hot button issues that have provided passion to democratic candidates including voting for the Iraq War. Not as a policy matter but understand that is one of the things Obama ran on successfully (not voting but being against the iraq war) and helped the passion of his voters. Again this is not all issues and clearly she will get some passion from voters motivated by the candidates gender.


Divorce yourself from the name and ask whether you would really urge this candidate to run or think the candidate has great advantages in beating the Republican candidate after the primaries.

[GitRDun]

27. I respect Nate Silver's numbers

I just think we are too early in the process.

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.

I think we're still just at the starting line.

[SouthernProgressive]

28. I think Nate is being kind to Sanders here and have said so.

But the election isn't being held today and the level of uncertainty in politics is dramatic. Lots can happen.

[wilsonbooks]

29. Nate is going to lose a lot of credibility.

Look at this trend line.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[TheFarS1de]

45. The trend is becoming obvious ...

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR131/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20150808-20150911/collapsed/false

Sanders is gaining at a cracking pace .

[Vattel]

31. Only 93? I am encouraged.

[whatchamacallit]

33. It's not a matter of belief

There's nothing to believe. He isn't claiming a fact, he's making a prediction based on his analysis. I guarantee his models are missing some important inputs particular to this race and current social climate.

[SusanCalvin]

34. "Nate Silver says Hillary has a 93% chance of beating Bernie Sanders."

Now.

[99Forever]

35. Opinions are just that, opinions.

My opinion is that I care fuckall what that clown says. Period.

[TSIAS]

36. 2010

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate

Nate Silver gives Sharon Angle an 83 % chance of beating Harry Reid. Is Sen. Angle running for re-election this time?

Just saying that Silver can make accurate picks, but sometimes he is wrong.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. "I have a dream, but I killed it with pragmatism", said Martin Luther King Jr., never.

[whatchamacallit]

42. Lol

[DisgustipatedinCA]

43. I've known since he announced his candidacy that Bernie is the big underdog.

And I know that even now, his chances are slim. But that's never been a part of my calculus. When I look at the entire field of candidates, I see death on the right, I see someone way too conservative in the center, and I see Bernie Sanders. Ergo, Sanders MUST win. I don't have the luxury of making a pragmatic choice when I'm actively against some very important things that every candidate other than Sanders is for.

There's a dice game I used to play. If a player gets over the 10,000 point mark, he or she has provisionally won. But every other player gets one last chance to roll and go for broke. The odds are against these challengers getting that many points in one set of rolls, but if they don't, they've lost.

And so my charge is to keep moving forward until Sanders wins. There's no decent alternative. And if I have to deal with a different reality, I'll do that in 2017. But now is about Bernie Sanders, and I'm not accepting other possibilities at the moment.

[whatchamacallit]

44. I'm with ya

[phleshdef]

39. You are forgetting that Nate leaves all his predictions subject to change as time goes along.

He only bases his predictions on whats known at "this very moment".

[restorefreedom]

41. why don't we ask these folks?

[TheKentuckian]

46. Holy straw choice, Batman! No one was challenging you to believe anything?

Silver is giving his odds others are allowed to believe differently, who the fuck cares and why do you?

If Silver in a month says his model gives Sanders a 52% chance of winning are you going to suddenly have different beliefs, priorities, or policy orientation? What about 75 or 99? Maybe?

No, of course not. Your politics it is my guess you believe what you do because you do not because it to be the most likely to be popular positions.

And guess sometimes you fight like hell even when the odds are fucking zero at best so I'll take my 7 or about 37 or 50 or 75 or 99 and give it a really good go.

Do you go on sports sites and belittle and make up non existent arguments with people who believe scores will differ from the Vegas line as well?

What a peculiar line of thinking. Not too far afield from believing one cannot get rained on if the weatherman says it is going to be sunny.

[jfern]

49. Nate doesn't have a model for the primary

He has that he pulled a number out of his ass.

[jfern]

48. 538 on Trump in June

Why Donald Trump Isn’t A Real Candidate, In One Chart

For this reason alone, Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-real-candidate-in-one-chart/


538 should give up on this pulling shit out of their asses to try to predict primaries several months away. It's obvious they're very bad at it.