Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

hack89

(39,171 posts)

22. Silver made no predictions about yesterday

Reply to roguevalley (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:01 PM

Mar 2016

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:09 PM - Edit history (2)

all he did several months ago was lay out the most likely path for Bernie to win and assign targets for each state.

The only take away from all this is that Bernie is underperforming by about 15% and is missing more targets than he is making.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders handily BEATS Nate Silver's target for yesterday's primaries [View all] thesquanderer Mar 2016 OP

the guy has been wrong so many times about Bernie. Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #1

Those weren't his predictions hack89 Mar 2016 #5

this is unusual with a deep well of unpolled voters out there that no one knows about roguevalley Mar 2016 #21

Silver made no predictions about yesterday hack89 Mar 2016 #22

No, the "take away from all this" is that Bernie's performance has been improving lately. thesquanderer Mar 2016 #31

But lsoon we will be in states that are favorable to Hillary and she will win a bunch of delegates hack89 Mar 2016 #32

Well, back in January, Nate picked Michigan for Bernie if Bernie were tied nationally with Hillary. Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #16

I'm sure he's devastated Capt. Obvious Mar 2016 #20

That is why his number went down to 56.5% needed of remaining PDs. morningfog Mar 2016 #2

Let's fix that: edgineered Mar 2016 #3

Thanks! I've updated the OP accordingly (n/t) thesquanderer Mar 2016 #9

Q: How did he get so many in Hawaii? Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #18

Since Nate has been wrong so often . . . .maybe we should discount his number, 538 by 20% pdsimdars Mar 2016 #4

lol +1. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #6

You do understand those targets were not predictions? hack89 Mar 2016 #7

See post 11. nt edgineered Mar 2016 #13

That post says nothing about the targets, now does it? Nt hack89 Mar 2016 #14

Try to follow the OP for a minute. I'll help you. edgineered Mar 2016 #15

And the OP is about beating targets hack89 Mar 2016 #17

Thought the word yesterday's was in the title. edgineered Mar 2016 #19

The 538 site now reports a 20% increase! INGSOC nt edgineered Mar 2016 #12

Look at all those states where he missed his targets hack89 Mar 2016 #8

Yup. That's why he's still an underdog. thesquanderer Mar 2016 #30

The targets are based on demographics 6chars Mar 2016 #10

News flash for the nay-sayers in this thread edgineered Mar 2016 #11

To the naughty list w/ them!! desmiller Mar 2016 #27

K&R amborin Mar 2016 #23

I'm not sure how you got 98 and certainly not 105 Number23 Mar 2016 #24

Numbers were on the 538 site, on the page I linked to thesquanderer Mar 2016 #25

Maybe the 538 linked showed Idaho and Utah too. Which does equal to 98 if you count them Number23 Mar 2016 #26

Did you look at the 538 link? thesquanderer Mar 2016 #28

Yep, you're right. The NY Times link is very different on this for some reason Number23 Mar 2016 #29