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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Polack MSgt

(13,159 posts)
Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:14 PM Aug 2016

Too good to be true?

The statistician from "none of the above" blog, Prof. Hubbard disagrees with Nate Silver, and is not shy about sharing his opinion.

If I had some small disagreement with Silver's numbers, I might send him snide messages on Twitter, which he would likely ignore. The thing is, my numbers don't say a small difference. He said Trump was leading early this week and after the convention he now says it's 51%-49% for Clinton.

To repeat, I don't call my numbers a prediction, just a snapshot of what polls say now.

The snapshot says 99% to 1% for Clinton.

Let me quote Glengarry Glen Ross.

"You think I am fucking with you? I am not fucking with you."


http://abovenota.blogspot.com/2016/07/clinton-vs-trump-31-july-2016-100-days.html

It is 100 days from the elections and anything is possible in an infinite universe - and I like hearing things I want to be true as much as the next person - so I am pinching salt all over this article.

But I'd be lying if I said it didn't cheer me right up.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Too good to be true? (Original Post) The Polack MSgt Aug 2016 OP
on the one hand, that certainly seems to be overstating things unblock Aug 2016 #1
Hell I'll take it. Accentuate the positive. nt fleabiscuit Aug 2016 #2
Silver keeps adding in some subjective parameters and the poll weighting is suspect. I'd think by uponit7771 Aug 2016 #3
Nice and positive!!!! n/t DemonGoddess Aug 2016 #4

unblock

(51,973 posts)
1. on the one hand, that certainly seems to be overstating things
Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:22 PM
Aug 2016

on the other hand, i agree that the chance of a democratic win this cycle seems noticeably stronger than it has been for other recent cycles.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
3. Silver keeps adding in some subjective parameters and the poll weighting is suspect. I'd think by
Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:38 PM
Aug 2016

... now the polling weight would have more parameters added to it by now

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Too good to be true?