538 called 99/100 of the states in the last 2 presidential elections correctly

Nate Silver's model called the last 2 presidential elections almost perfectly. I really don't see how you can discount this.

The last two elections didn't have TRUMP

Every single prediction that he made about Trump over the last year has been utterly incorrect.

Nate Hydrogen failed to predict Trump's numerous victories during the primaries

Leaf post best post.

>texas
>red

Yes, but now Silver knows to account for Trump.

Sage

It's going to be funny when he goes 50/50 again.

2 elections is the minimum required to even build a model. And it will mandatorily be perfect for them.

>North Carolina going blue
>Arizona being a turn-up
What bullshit numbers are they getting to make this shitty chart?
Also Trump is leading in Florida, the stupid fuckers.

Trump isn't a politician, this election was slated to be Clinton v Bush before this gorilla dick cheeto nigga stepped in the ring.

Nate "Oracle" Silver, ey?

This is not just an election

he didn't learn the first 12 times, he won't know for this one either.

>Nate Aluminum Foil
>getting anything right in current year

Yeah and and Nate Silver also said a Cubs vs Indians World Series is almost as likely as a Trump presidency.
Wait a minute...

>accounts by unskewing polls
The past 2 months he's been pathetic-tier

last election was white mormon obama vs obama and the former almost won!

Your time has passed Mr. Pyrite

And he got 2% of the current election correctly.
Really gets the almonds activated.

>ohio
>florida
>Arizona
>indiana
>Iowa
>Montana
>North Carolina
>Pennsylvania
None of these will go blue

isnt he the guy who said there was also a chance in hell of Trump winning the primaries and The Chicago cubs making it to the play offs?

watch the game last night?

That's the primaries though, not the same as the general.

the polls in 2012 used semi-accurate samping

nigga u dum

(((Silver)))

Hillary is ahead in both polls and early voting in NC

Wrong. His data predictions proved Trump would win the primaries, he personally disagreed with that data and instead went with his instinct.

His data is accurate.

idgi do you racist morons think your (((code))) is either effective or fooling anyone? It mostly serves as a way to identify yourself as an idiot

things that were unlikely to happen are happening.

Cleveland won a championship after being down 3-1
The Cubs are going to win the world series
Bernie won Michigan
Trump won the primaries

"but muh theories and projections"

shove it up your ass user.

None of the polling models seem to be accounting for the new electorate. Trump could very well win.

Especially when you look st all these polls where the have women overweighted by 20 points, and dems overweighted by 11 points (totally la-la land bullshit).

And they all try to mirror each other.

Trump very well could win.

yes, but you are talking about before the GOP primary started which was basically a guess since trump had never actually run, but threatened to for the last 20 years. And the cubs ... He doesn't calculate sports by polls.

triggered nigger detecterino'd

>Trump will not win a SINGLE state!
>SEE?! he lost Iowa! TRUMP IS FINISHED!
>uhhh....ummmm New Hampshire was a fluke.... JEB! will still win!
>oh...Jeb dropped out....Cruz will win! 99.9% chance!
>oh...he dropped out too...uh KASICHS OUR MAN!
>Nate silver: FUCKING DRUMPF!

THANK YOU

Time to face the music DRUMPFAGS

Your Orange Meme is on the way out!

It's amazing how you pick out the first time voters from miles away. Have fun kiddo.

keked

>Trump campaign’s own internal election models show results “similar to” Nate Silvers

trump went up against 16 senators, congressman, govenors

and he beat the living fuck out of all of them

and there was Nate Silver, bitching and moaning the whole way alongside Glenn Beck and the never trumpers

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

WHAT ABOUT HIS PREDICTIONS OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS???

Not considering Alaska and Georgia as concrete solid red is already a fantasy. Discarded.

>99/100 of the states
but we only have 50 states

The odds based on history before the GOP primary started were that Trump wouldn't even run. He has threatened to run as a PR stunt in the last 4 presidential elections.

This is my third presidential election, and I'm not particularly invested.

I'm aware of of my biases.

It's not code it's a public service announcement.

...

He came in during the absolute easiest presidential election ever. The dems knew the first time they ran a black they'd win.

>The odds based on history before the GOP primary started were that Trump wouldn't even run. He has threatened to run as a PR stunt in the last 4 presidential elections.

too bad the odds didnt matter and he DID run. and he won the nomination despite Nate Silver

as he will win the presidency. He gave trump a 1% to win the primaries, a 12.7% to win the election means the same thing. Nothing.

>demonstrates zero understanding of how polling works

MMhmm 3rd presidential election, whatever you say.

You can only trust Nate Pyrite if you trust the polls. All he does is hand weight each poll for "trustworthiness," combine them all into an average, and then place odds.

Which is fine, except this isn't really the year to trust the polls, or media in general. This is the most biased and corrupt election cycle of my life, worse than it's ever been.

Trump will win because he is a winner and he will make America great again because he is great. You can't dispute this.

geeesh, Nate Silver doesn't care who wins. His model is only as good as the data that it processes. The closer to the election, the more data he has to work with. 99/100 for 538's final prediction on presidential elections.

When Trump wins and u CTR dudes need a job or some investment income, you may want to consider kneepads.

there seems to be a lot of this indisputable logic around here.

Wew lad

/biz/ has the best memes

>99/100

When did we get 100 states?

>Trump could very well win.
Nate isn't claiming that Trump won't. He's just saying that it's unlikely.

Why don't you explain it to me.

Well they are off by 4 this election already

anybody got that webm with the dude laughing at how wrong nate was about bernie in MI?

Perfect example at how seriously flawed nate's methodology was for elections outside 08/12 elections. He relied too much on sampling and presumed allegiances of voters.

...

That tweet is misleading. If you actually go to the FL Atlantic University website, you see that Hillary is overall +3 in Florida. You're tracking election day specifically instead of election day + early voting + absentee ballots.

>Nate Silver's model called the last 2 presidential elections almost perfectly

apparently math & Trump supporters do not mix

YEAH, WELL, NATE SILVER SAID BRAZIL HAD A 60% CHANCE OF BEATING GERMANY, AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED.

When did we get 50 states multiplied by 2 years?

liberals like to cite the previous 2 elections as the only two elections to ever have happened no realizing how incredibly rare they really were. They don't truly reflect American voting habits

Sounds like a huge cop-out. "Yeah, I was wrong, but my data wasn't." No, he got Trump wrong.

It's cool that he predicted two presidential elections accurately, but that's just two presidential elections. If I successfully predict two coin flips, it doesn't make me any more an expert on coin flips.

His data was not wrong. His data said that Trump would win the primaries.

His data has always been 99-100% accurate. His feelings were wrong.

Trump is a phenomenon that this gay faggot's model can't model.

>In the last two presidential elections

> Trump loves the uneducated

2 presidential elections X 50 states.

Or is that to abstract of an idea for Trump supporters to process ?

>Silver

Not even once

I predicted the last 4 elections successfully.
It's not that hard.
You have 50/50 chance when there is no incumbent, and something like 80/20 when there is.

>I'm right even when I'm wrong
How convenient.

Arizona and ohio better go red i have 100 bucks riding on it.

good luck predicting 50/50 states like that

Reminder to hide and sage all slide threads.

Again, that's a huge cop-out. It's like me saying, "McCain will win" and when he loses go "yeah but I had data saying Obama would win so I'm still right."

He was already wrong about this election. Although he could still be right, not sure why you'd continue to trust what he has to say. We'll find out who the president of the US is in a little bit anyways so it's not like it really matters.

It was TWO elections you fucking idiot. I'll be impressed when he gets more than four. Until then you and Nate silver can suck my my ass.

wow two whole elections! what a track record.

>trusting the democratic version of Frank Lutz

>implying his methodologies aren't inherently flawed, in that they presume factors of obama's success like grass-roots campaigning and high minority turnout, and attribute them to hillary as well

>implying he's taken into account the righteous-anger vote

>implying he's taken into account the bradley effect or biased polling by companies invested in a hillary win

being unaware of potential snafus will be his downfall and why he will be discredited

simple, the model doesn't account for the crazy amount of turnout Trump will get. couldn't stop us with an alien invasion.

so these people can go to rally's but they don't early vote ? Hillary is ahead in early voting.

What gives ?

>couldn't stop us with an alien invasion
Hey Obama already tried to.

>holy shit he predicted Texas red and Cali blue
In any given election there are less than 10 states up for grabs. In Obama's elections there were more like 4. Nate silver isn't 99/100 he's 7/8

>hillary is

lol

They don't vote early cause most of the people don't, and they're also afraid of the possible fraud. There's also vast demographics that don't even go to the rallies for obvious reasons, yet still vote for Trump. If you want proof, try to think of every demographic that would vote and go for Trump, but isn't presented in current weightings. Shouldn't take too long for you to figure out either.

apparently humor and CTR shill do not mix

got straight A's though 3 semesters of calculus so you're just as wrong as Nate Cardboard

>Arizona
>Light Blue
>Texas
>Light Red
Only retards would believe this.

What a coincidence. It seems like every single year early voting, a process that requires much less risk in identification than regular voting, skews Democrat, yet on election night, so few of these Democrat citizens can be bothered to show up. It's weird how that works.

Republicans are looking for busses, they should be looking at the mail truck.

Ohio and Iowa are already a lock for Trump, Florida is looking increasingly likely as well

Even if Trump loses there is no way Silver's state predictions are accurate

Nate Shillver gave him a 1% chance to win the nomination and he said every week how Trump is going to be defeated by his opponents.

> Ohio and Iowa are already a lock for Trump, Florida is looking increasingly likely as well

according to ?

oy vey the data is wrong!!!

let me make a false prediction even though my (((data))) has never been wrong.

so why would he go with his "instinct" even though his (((data))) has never been wrong?

ctr gtfo

Here are my steps for prediction USA president:
1: Choose the incumbent.
2: Choose the guy with the best suit and tie.
3. If suit and tie are similar, choose the one with the populist message.
Using these simple steps I predicted Bush (suit and tie) Bush (incumbent) Obama (populist) Obama (incumbent) Trump (suit and tie + populist)
So far I have a better record than this silvers fellow.

>It's cool that he predicted two presidential elections accurately
He predicted 99/100 of the states in those elections.

>If I successfully predict two coin flips, it doesn't make me any more an expert on coin flips.
If you successfully predicted 99 out of 100 coin flips, it's probably not luck. The odds of doing that would be 1:2^99

>these things are the same as 51+ seperate elections

You realize oversampling has a purpose right?

Not every poll does it, but those that do are trying to find specific demographic positions

I want this election to be done so we can just finally admit Nate Silver is a fucking god when it comes to the general elections

Okay here's my genuine actual beef with him concerning these: he also uses previous elections to determine base support. That's why he has Iowa light blue which is INSANE. It should be at least light red if not full on in Trump's category.

Why? Trump is surging in early voting. Trump is up 4-6% based on your choice of polls. Sen. Grassley who is 83, the guy who is blocking the SCOTUS nominee, and a Trump supporting Republican, should be getting his ASS handed to him by Patty Judge, who's propped up with millions from the DNC. Instead he's winning by one of his greatest margins.

So what does this tell us, getting back to my original point? It tells us that in states with young, white, male progressive liberals, Trump is winning handily. Why? Because they are Bernie or bust and simply will not vote. Even CTR shills can't deny the race is tightening based on STATE level polls. If turnout is low for Hillary, she's done. And she knows this. We wouldn't have topless Miley Cyrus and Silly Willy on college campuses if it weren't tight.

If turnout is high for both, it will be interesting. I believe that in this case, mostly due to Mexicans (and illegals committing voter fraud) Hillary will win in excess of 308 electoral votes (Florida, NC, VA, Nevada) BUT Trump will still win the popular vote. We've known for years the system fucked over this country. I mean, in 2000 with the race literally going to the Supreme Court, we had one elector deciding he would abstain in DC. And even though Gore won the popular vote, he still lost the election. It's rich because he's in Florida right now blatantly spreading the meme that Jeb! stole Florida for big brother.

Screencap this. If those trends I mentioned play out, this will be the results. Tl;Dr Nate Silvers predictions are not valid when he uses a base from the Obama years that couldn't give two shits about Clinton and they are easily debunked