Nate Silver Wins Again!

Where were you when Nate Silver continued dominating with his absolutely 100% correct predictions? He called this election. Everyone else was saying hey these polls are D+8, but Nate unskewed them the best. And he was completely right again. Yep that's 3 elections where he called it without missing a single state.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I
thealternativehypothesis.org/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

what a shameless shit stain

JUST

Why does pol hate this guy

Nate was wrong for the 100th time. Some random professor that fox found was better.

1 in 5 odds is still pretty likely. People complaining about fivethirtyeight really don't understand probability

His predictions were the most accurate, even if the night of the election he was running on fumes and made some hilarious camera appearances.

I tweeted him this image and he got so mad he ranted at me and then blocked me.

He Cubs will win then Trump wins in jest

He's Natestromous and Nate Potassium at the same time

>says both Republicans and Democrats have a chance to win
>right because he called both of them
Hurr durr.

youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I

Nate Silver Keked by a youtube guy

...

This is exactly what all my liberal friends were telling me when I was saying Trump is going to win. They all said yes a 20% chance is still pretty likely, it is plausible.

>Hillary >70%
>Trump

Not to mention he skyrocketed Trump's odds at the last minute so as to save some face. He had him at like

"I was slightly less wrong than all the others."

Guy hasn't gotten anything right since 2012, I don't know why people treat him like some poll-analysis god.

The thing that pisses me off about (((Nate Styrofoam))) is that he acts like this was an act of god, like it was something that NOBODY could have predicted, and therefore he isn't at fault for being wrong.

The data was staring him in the fucking face and he chose to ignore it. He willfully ignores things like primary turnout. He willfully ignored the record-numbers of GOP registration and people leaving the democratic party. He willfully ignored trends from early voting data. He willfully ignored the fact that WE'VE ALL KNOWN since the very beginning that there would be an influx of new voters for Trump, and white democrats switching sides. Hell, he chose to completely ignore crowd size and visible sign support as being irrelevant, when he actually has no data to back this claim up.

Nate dismissed all this as being irrelevant.

Meanwhile, two shitlords who run a fucking blog were able to accurately predict the election by taking this all into account. They were able to predict what the entire media structure said was impossible.

thealternativehypothesis.org/

Pfffft. This guy said there was no chance in hell that Trump could ever take PA, MI or WI. Who gives a fuck about what he said about the popular vote, its the electoral college that matters, and he completely screwed that one up.

Yeah, he "updates" his results through election day, and then publishes the final result as though that were his original projection. Back in 2012, he started Obama at ~60% (very noncommittal), and on election day, as the results rolled out, he bumped Obama up to ~90%.

Nate (((Silver))) is a fucking weasel.

only dilbertman can be trusted now

Can we call them "postdictions"?
I mean, it's either that or he calls himself Captain Hindsight.

>This guy said there was no chance in hell that Trump could ever take PA, MI or WI.

That's true, but he also gave him much better chances of any other pundits.

Even though he was dead wrong, he was less wrong than all the other established pundits/pollsters, making him, ironically enough, the most accurate one again, just like in '08 and '12.

>a goat
kek.

Needs op's pic added at the end.

No, he didn't. At one point he said Harambe had a better chance winning the election than Trump. He had Trump lower than 15% for the longst of time,and only started to adjust it up towards 35% during the end of the campaign to save face, but he also lowered it again to 25% on election day simply because he lives in a bubble like most liberals and allowed his belief that Hillary would win cloud his professional judgement.

Nate Copper Oxide was wrong all the way. And he has a receeding hairline.

Love seeing that little rat's failure

Ummmmmmmm, Trump won, so shouldn't the percentage have been 100%??? Fucking statisticians.

Dude the lottery doesn't pay out if you only hit 1 number. There were tons of obvious ques he needed to rethink his assumptions and he ignored them all. Even if this election is a one off he's still a dogmatic loon.

the only credit i will give him is that he was right about the idb/tipp poll

>Nate Silver
loser.com

>Nate Iron Ore
>Still relevant
>Not eternally BTFO for the rest of his life

I remember watching this vid like 6 months ago, nigga has a good channel.

The USC Dornsife / LA Times = Big Dawg of Polling

...

...

>He had Trump lower than 15% for the longst of time,and only started to adjust it up towards 35% during the end of the campaign to save face

You do realize that over 2/3rds of pollsters had Trump at 1-5% a day before the election, right?

Yeah, Nate Oatmeal was wrong, but he was LESS wrong than any other established pundit/pollster.

We're going to have to kill these people, aren't we?

It's fucking nothing!

Pollsters include LA Times/USC, IDB, Rasmussan right?

Does pundits include Bill Mitchell? Wish I was a pundit, because I was calling this since before the primaries ended and everyone looked at me like I was nuts.

That's okay

They go to college
They get their degrees
They get their statistical job
They failed at predicting who was going to be US President
They keep backtracking saying they were better at predicting other things

No need for fisticuffs, their intellectual failing is their biggest defeat

A Russian astrologer predicted a Trump victory.

A Chinese monkey predicted a Trump victory.

An Indian fish predicted a Trump victory.

Nate Silver predicted a Hillary victory.

Let that sink in.

>Pollsters include LA Times/USC, IDB, Rasmussan right?

I suppose. Those are 3 polls that had Trump ahead, compared to a dozen or more than had him behind by comfortable margins.

>Does pundits include Bill Mitchell?

Not really, he's too small and unestablished. Might as well start calling Styxhexenhammer666 a pundit.

An autist weeding through rice predicted a Trump Victory