Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:24:53 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination  (Read 3153 times)
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2015, 05:19:20 PM »

There's a big difference between losing and not winning. The majority of non-Clinton percentage points stem from the chance that she wouldn't run in the first place (due to health, death, etc). Of the candidates that are probably running (Webb, Sanders, O'Malley), their combined total is 4% (8% if you include Biden). So according to Nate's numbers, her total odds of winning the nomination are 77%, but if she runs, her odds of winning are 92-96%.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2015, 05:28:31 PM »

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.

So you think Gillibrand has a better chance of winning the nomination than Cruz?

So many of you are going to have egg on your face in a year. It's going to be amazing.
I've always maintained that Hillary is the clear favorite to win the nomination. But I refuse to rule out her losing it, even with Warren out, unless she is still topping 50% nationally (on RCP) in October.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2015, 05:43:13 PM »

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.

So you think Gillibrand has a better chance of winning the nomination than Cruz?

So many of you are going to have egg on your face in a year. It's going to be amazing.
I've always maintained that Hillary is the clear favorite to win the nomination. But I refuse to rule out her losing it, even with Warren out, unless she is still topping 50% nationally (on RCP) in October.

I'd address this now, but I'll wait a bit. Once Hillary officially declares, I'll be doing a super long effortpost to show how foolish the idea of her losing the nomination is using loads of empirical data (along with a large dose of common sense.) I'm waiting until she declares so it doesn't get flooded with "lol she wont even run" sh**tposts. I don't expect it to convince those permanently stuck in the denial stage of grief, but it will be convenient to refer back to it rather than repeating myself over and over.

Regardless, if you actually listen to them discussing these odds, the discussion around Hillary centers on her not running/dying/having to drop out due to scandal or health issues. Nate's odds are thus absurdly low if that's what the discussion is based around.
Logged
porky88
Rookie
**
Posts: 78
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2015, 06:24:08 PM »

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.

What results? It's subjective. He's giving his personal opinion.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2015, 08:11:39 PM »

O' Malley is underrated.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2015, 08:42:54 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2015, 09:06:40 PM by Mr. Morden »

Good point. But what makes you think Warren isn't interested even if Hillary drops out? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's possible she just doesn't want to enter as a massive underdog against Hillary.

Klobuchar, for example, met with the Iowa and South Carolina delegations at the 2012 DNC.  She took time out from her own reelection efforts to campaign for Christie Vilsack in Iowa.  She attended an Iowa-hosted party at the 2013 Obama inauguration, and made several visits to Iowa in 2013.  She raised money for Shaheen in NH.  She gave several "non-denial denial" answers when people asked her if she was going to run for president back in 2013.  Her ambitions are of course now on the back burner, since it looks like Clinton is going to run, but she made her ambitions pretty clear.

Warren did nothing comparable, even going back to late 2012, when it was less certain that Clinton was going to run.  She answered "No no no no no", when asked if she had presidential ambitions back in 2012, and spent much of her first year in the Senate avoiding interviews and trying to downplay her public profile.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2015, 08:49:45 PM »

I think that Warren is happy to be in the Senate. She wants to be the new Ted Kennedy, the 'liberal lioness' of the Senate. She has never done anything or said anything that indicates any kind of presidential ambition. I don't believe she will run even if (in the extremely unlikely event) Clinton doesn't run or drops out. If Clinton does drop out, others will have back up plans jump into motion like get in quickly.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2015, 09:36:26 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2015, 09:40:10 PM by IceSpear »

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.

What results? It's subjective. He's giving his personal opinion.

Indeed. If there was a statistical model, there's no way that Hillary would be south of 95%.

Like I said, Nate should stick to objectivity, because he's godawful at subjectivity.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2015, 10:14:25 PM »


Um, no?

Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2015, 12:47:34 AM »

I actually listened to the podcast and to be clear Nate and the other guys were saying there is a chance she doesn't run or is 'forced out' due to some scandal, not that she 'loses' to one of the others. The theory goes that there are a series of new allegations along the lines of emailgate leading to her not running or dropping out. Short of that, she wins. While that scenario is certainly plausible, I think 23% is over-estimating it.

BTW, They all also noted their own internal bias for there to be an actual nomination fight.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,798
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2015, 04:49:05 AM »

As Clinton has proven, she is at least a statistical dead heat with the GOP nominee. Before, she seemed to be much more vulnerable to Jeb, than Walker, when Jeb jumped into race.

But, Dems which they hoped she would have done, see no reason to dump her now, since she is holding up against opposition.

She will have to make a gaffe like in 2008, on MLK day.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 13 queries.