538: Hillary has a 90% chance of winning Indiana

[egalitegirl]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/indiana-democratic/

According to our final polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has a 90% chance of winning the Indiana primary.

Projected Results

Clinton 54.2%
Sanders 43.3%

[madaboutharry]

1. Or not.

Bernie still can't catch up.

[Tiggeroshii]

40. That 65% threshold of delegates needed for him to win will tick down slightly after today.

=)

[artislife]

2. *snerk.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. There's still a chance.

[cureautismnow]

6. You forgot the meme.

[dubyadiprecession]

19. There's always a chance....

Just not for BS.

[CentralCoaster]

4. 538 has been shit worthless this season.

But they're always used to float a Hillary winning meme.

Sold out, I think.

[Dem2]

7. 538 doesn't do polling

If the polls are wrong, EVERYBODY is wrong.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. That works.

Go Bernie.

[CentralCoaster]

17. Nate Silver had a good run during the Obama campaign.

All I know is that the conclusions they peddle have been so wrong so often that it's scarcely worth reading them.

I miss demconwatch, I used that site extensively in 2007-2008

[egalitegirl]

25. That was just fluke

He just needed to get 3 or 4 swing states right. Statistically, if 1000 people make predictions, a few of them are bound to get the right combination. I suspect he may have made predictions for all sorts of combinations with multiple ids. Most likely, that was a big hoax as he seems to be completely incompetent.

[Dem2]

34. Lol

Funny seeing Democrats who don't believe in math.

[frylock]

56. Math lost.

Where's your messiah now?

[Dem2]

57. Not my messiah

I have yet to praise him that I recall, but I know that when polls are wrong, predictions are wrong, has nothing to do with the messenger, as much as you'd like to play some kind of good-guy, bad-guy game with the most popular of the predictors.

[egalitegirl]

75. I'm saying he only got it right once

Math or no math does not matter. He only got it right one time. That is a credibility problem. More so when he could have easily fudged the numbers that one time by making multiple posts under various ids so that he could take credit no matter which combination matched the result. There were not that many combinations if you only had to get 2 or 3 swing states right.

[Dem2]

31. Well, you don't understand math then

[egalitegirl]

35. Maybe but...

I understand how Nate Silver got it all wrong this time and how he could have easily made multiple predictions in 2008 using various ids and taken credit for whichever turned out to be right.

He had to get only a few combinations right as many states were obvious.

[reformist2]

22. Except for the people who predicted a Sanders win in Indiana...

[Goblinmonger]

49. Oh that's bullshit

Then stop praising him when he's right.

[Dem2]

50. Non sequitur

Your response makes no sense.

In addition, I'm fairly sure I have yet to praise him this cycle, making your response just a little be more off-base.

[Goblinmonger]

69. He got all the praise in the world for getting the last presidential correct

Now when he sucks horribly this cycle, it's not his fault.

Dude can't have it both ways.

[Dem2]

71. Open primary polling sucks bad

Can't blame the aggregators for that.

[FlatBaroque]

5. LOLLL

[dchill]

9. 538 dot com:

The TPP of election prediction!

[Beacool]

10. I was surprised when they predicted that she would win the state.

I was sure that it was in Sanders' column. Either way, it doesn't really matter. They'll split the delegates almost equally, that helps Hillary. Sanders needed a blowout in the state to eat away at her pledged delegate lead.

[JonLeibowitz]

13. Most of us know it doesn't change the race. It's mostly amusing because 538 has been shitty all year

Starting with their prediction that Sanders could win NH/IA and lose every other state. It's delightful to see their predictions fail again and again (yes I understand the difference between a 90% chance and a prediction -- but their expected % value for Clinton was > 50%)

[Beacool]

20. I think they only screwed the pooch twice, with MI and tonight.

Or am I wrong?

[JonLeibowitz]

23. Well, as I said, ---->

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/

[NuclearDem]

28. That's not a projection. It's an opinion piece written almost a whole year ago.

Other than Michigan and Indiana, they've projected the winner correctly for the Democrats this whole cycle.

[JonLeibowitz]

33. Well, if you say so. I see it as some serious blinders about how political campaigns develop.

[reformist2]

27. About 25 states have been so lopsided that the 538 crew would have been idiots to get those wrong.

[egalitegirl]

37. I was not

This is just cheating to try and demoralize Bernie supporters and influence the outcome. He has been doing it over and over again this election. This is worse than Saddam Hussein's propaganda.

[JonLeibowitz]

11. Oops.

[bettyellen]

12. they already said on the blog that they fucked up!

[JonLeibowitz]

14. So I guess that means we don't have to hold them accountable?

[bettyellen]

41. How does that follow? Polls are getting harder to take these days, and there were fewer polls in IN

than in any other state so far. It is what it is.

[JonLeibowitz]

47. If that is true, perhaps 90% reflects an overconfidence in their ability to predict.

[bettyellen]

48. Other polls were 80- 85% earlier today- but that was likelihood of wining by a small amount-

I think the projected spread was like 4-5 points.

[Cobalt Violet]

15. this ass been wrong a lot.

Not sure why anyone bothers with his shit.

[pdsimdars]

67. When you shill for Hill all you can do is go wrong.

[AzDar]

16. Go, Bernie... GO!!

[NuclearDem]

18. It's the second time they've been wrong.

Big whoop.

HA Goodman and The Young Turks, on the other hand, have never been right this whole cycle.

[Vote2016]

21. 538 has been flawless this cycle! They were the first to recognize that Trump wouldn't go anywhere

in the Republican primary and first to get almost 25% of the Democratic vote projections pretty close to nearly exactly right more or less.

[LP2K12]

24. Flawless?

Have we forgotten Michigan?

[JonLeibowitz]

26. I think you're responding to satire ;-)

[LP2K12]

29. Right over my head

[Peregrine Took]

30. Oh, and the great "538" is NEVER wrong!!

[ismnotwasm]

32. Well clearly that's not happening.

[paulthompson]

36. 538 wrong again

Some people are claiming in this thread that this is only the second time 538 got things wrong. Not true. They've been wrong about the Democratic side many times, and actually even worse on the Republican side.

And you can't say that if the polls are wrong, then they'll be wrong. They give two numbers: a strict polling average, and then their "polls plus" numbers where they add their own input to the numbers. In this case, the polls only had a 85% chance of Clinton winning, then the "polls plus" made it a 90% chance of Clinton winning. They've been very consistent in giving the "polls plus" numbers more of a lean, which is why they've been wrong so often.

I can't remember a case when they tilted the "polls plus" number in Sanders' direction, even though Sanders has outdone the polls in most of the states outside the South.

[quaker bill]

38. needs a kick

[Cobalt Violet]

45. needs to be repeatedly kicked!

[840high]

39. Wrong again.

[Cobalt Violet]

42. K & R!

[dana_b]

43. hehehehe...

538 screws up again

[pdsimdars]

44. 538 decoder

If these results in Indiana represent a 90% chance of winning, I wonder how much he'll beat her by in Califironia when Hillary has a 91% chance. . . . does that mean he'll beat her by MORE than Indiana or less?

[ozone_man]

46. Their credibility is a joke. n/t

[artislife]

53. Yup. nt

[northernsouthern]

51. Oooooops. NT

[ljm2002]

52. Kicking for visibility... n/t

[Kip Humphrey]

54. notice how statisticians do not show a pattern but actual vote reporting does show a pattern

Clinton 54.2%
Sanders 43.3%

notice a certain asymmetry as the statistician attempts to model reality.
(50% +4.2%, 50% -6.7%)

Now, look how the vote reported out from the Indiana state central electronic vote tabulator running the GEM$ suite that includes an integrated state central electronic voter registration software:

Note how the vote reporting appears to be irregular by being too regular, suggesting the running of an algorithm that smooths the reported vote around 50%:

(Candidate ahead, Candidate behind):
(50% +.4%, 50% -.4%)
(50% +.7%, 50% -.7%)
(50% +.9%, 50% -.9%)
Update:
(50% +1.9%,50%-1.9%)
(50% +1.8%,50%-1.8%)
Update:
(50% +1.9%,50%-1.9%)
Update:
(50% +2.1%,50%-2.1%)
Update:
(50% +2.2%,50%-2.2%)
Update:
(50% +2.3%,50%-2.3%)
Update:
(50% +2.4%,50%-2.4%)
Update:
(50% +2.5%,50%-2.5%)
Update:
(50% +2.7%,50%-2.7%)
Update:
(50% +2.8%,50%-2.8%)
Update:
(50% +2.9%,50%-2.9%)
Update:
(50% +3.0%,50%-3.0%)
Update: anyone see a pattern here yet? a smoothing algorithm is running.
(50% +3.1%,50%-3.1%)
Update:
(50% +3.2%,50%-3.2%)
Update:
(50% +3.3%,50%-3.3%)
Update:
(50% +3.2%,50%-3.2%)
Update:
(50% +3.3%,50%-3.3%)
Update:
(50% +2.9%,50%-2.9%)

Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 08:44 PM - Edit history (9)

[Zorra]

55. I'm starting to think their whole gig is to try to discourage Sanders supporters. nt

[pdsimdars]

68. ya think?

[vintx]

72. Yep, that is of course the goal.

Sad seeing people here doing the same thing, but it's possible some are being paid to do it, so...

[jillan]

58. Hahahaaa heeeeheeehe. 538 your 15 minutes of fame is up!

[Logical]

59. LOL! Feel silly now???

[berni_mccoy]

60. WRONG AGAIN!

[Cobalt Violet]

61. kick

: :

[John Poet]

62. Another Fuck-Up by that Nate Silver know-it-all.

BIGTIME.

[Waiting For Everyman]

63. You'd think he'd learn to at least bring his percent number down

out of the 90s, so as not to look so silly when he's wrong!

[Betty Karlson]

64. Nate Silver is starting to become a farce.

[GreatGazoo]

65. I've heard that crow is delicious...

[pdsimdars]

66. Losing their credibility by shilling for Hillary

There have been so many people who have thrown away their life long earned credibility by throwing themselves to establishment Hillary.

For me the first of these shocks were the AA Civil Rights leaders who thew Bernie under the bus for Hillary. That was a shock. I had thought that the Civil Rights credibility went so deep that they would never give that up. But they sure did. EVERYONE knew or could easily have known about Bernie's real commitment to civil rights. And yet, they threw him under the bus. Gave me the creeps.

And then there were some of the well-known "progressives" in congress who came out for Hillary, for what reason I can't figure out. Since what they believe in is the opposite of Hillary's positions on most major issues. It's not the issues, but seems to be "establishment" vs. "will of the people".

Now it's Nate.

Also there are many of the "progressive show hosts" who have lost it all for this.

But at least we can now clearly see who are the real progressives vs the establishment "progressive" talkers who are really just establishment shills.

[jcgoldie]

70. They have a mathematical model that they use based on polling

Not that it doesn't call into question the reliability of their model. They obviously deserve the criticism when they are wrong. But to blame it on some sort of intentional bias like "shilling for Hillary" just shows a basic lack of understanding of how statistics work.

[pdsimdars]

73. Probably right about Nate and the pollsters, but for the rest, . . . there's something else at work

They surrendered their credibility.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. 538 -- too much 420?