How Nate Silver Missed Donald Trump

[Torie]

Yes, I know, Lief is going to get really hot and bothered about this article. So be it. The problem is that Silver is using multiple ingredients for his prognostications, rather than just data, just like ordinary mortals do without black boxes. And he seems quite likely to have been wrong. The establishment has proved surprisingly toothless, at least so far. Sure, in the end, events may salvage Silver, but for the moment, he's just been wrong, just like to pick somebody at random, a forumite here who goes by the screen name "Torie."  Even the best of us can be wrong, so be merciful please, with malice towards none, and charity for all. Thank you.

[HillOfANight]

Back in the day, he had no analysis, said follow the polls, and people were amazed he could do what RealClearPolitics does.

He went on a limb to get credibility if Trump faltered, but now he's just lost credibility.

[Gustaf]

Putting up hypotheses based on data and testing them isn't "wrong".

Since polls are generally very unreliable in primaries compared to general elections, trying to put in more data makes sense.

But I guess joining the latest lynch mob to shout in unison is more fun for some people.

[Türkisblau]

Everyone on this pathetic subforum has been wrong every step of the way. I just love seeing the patronizing, oblivious, and condescending "moderates" squirm and lose all influence that they may have once had.

Wonderful election season.

[The Other Castro]

Everyone on this pathetic subforum has been wrong every step of the way. I just love seeing the patronizing, oblivious, and condescending "moderates" squirm and lose all influence that they may have once had.

Wonderful election season.

We don't get paid though and hailed as the word of gospel for all things political predictions.

[Türkisblau]

Everyone on this pathetic subforum has been wrong every step of the way. I just love seeing the patronizing, oblivious, and condescending "moderates" squirm and lose all influence that they may have once had.

Wonderful election season.

We don't get paid though and hailed as the word of gospel for all things political predictions.

Most on here certainly think of themselves that way, and tend to agree with pretty much everything that jabroni says. My point is that it's part of a larger pattern of these "prognosticators" being humiliated.

[Lurker]

Putting up hypotheses based on data and testing them isn't "wrong".

Since polls are generally very unreliable in primaries compared to general elections, trying to put in more data makes sense.

But I guess joining the latest lynch mob to shout in unison is more fun for some people.

Well, he has seemed awfully certain about this, showing little indications of considering arguments that ran counter to his conclusions (and making a lot of dubious arguments himself, such as the idea that Trump as a candidate was more or less equivalent to earlier "anti-establishment candidates" (none of whom shared Trump's level of support over time, his celebrity status, and probably lots of other factors). Now that Silver is starting to backtrack, at the very last moment, I hardly think he should be considered the victim of a "lynch mob".

Sure, he may get a lot of unfair criticism, but on the flipside: When he's right, he is lauded as a genius, even when his statistical modeling barely differs from a simple polling average.

[Gustaf]

Everyone on this pathetic subforum has been wrong every step of the way. I just love seeing the patronizing, oblivious, and condescending "moderates" squirm and lose all influence that they may have once had.

Wonderful election season.

You love this election season because some people on Atlas you dislike lost their "influence" over...something important, I assume. Really?

I think casting it in those terms just makes you a part of what you say you hate.

[Türkisblau]

Everyone on this pathetic subforum has been wrong every step of the way. I just love seeing the patronizing, oblivious, and condescending "moderates" squirm and lose all influence that they may have once had.

Wonderful election season.

You love this election season because some people on Atlas you dislike lost their "influence" over...something important, I assume. Really?

I think casting it in those terms just makes you a part of what you say you hate.

I meant "moderates" as in Republican Party moderates, and in some way Democratic Party moderates (although I dislike Sanders). The Atlas moderates being humiliated is just a side-benefit.

[Gustaf]

Putting up hypotheses based on data and testing them isn't "wrong".

Since polls are generally very unreliable in primaries compared to general elections, trying to put in more data makes sense.

But I guess joining the latest lynch mob to shout in unison is more fun for some people.

Well, he has seemed awfully certain about this, showing little indications of considering arguments that ran counter to his conclusions (and making a lot of dubious arguments himself, such as the idea that Trump as a candidate was more or less equivalent to earlier "anti-establishment candidate" (none of whom shared Trump's level of support over time, his celebrity status, and probably lots of other factors). Now that Silver is starting to backtrack, at the very last moment, I hardly think he should be considered the victim of a "lynch mob".

And on the flipside, when he's right he is largely lauded as a genius, even when his statistical modeling barely differs from a simple polling average.

Those are different points. I agree Silver has seemed reluctant to admit Trump is doing well.

What I take issue with is the constant ridicule of him not just looking at polling data. I find that line of attack pretty silly.

I also think it's generally petty to hate on people because other people laud them as geniuses. I guess the saintly users on Atlas Forum would have refused lucrative contracts with the media out of principle but I harbour no such self-illusions. If people proclaimed me the Messiah for pointing out obvious things I'd cash that check.

[Gustaf]

Everyone on this pathetic subforum has been wrong every step of the way. I just love seeing the patronizing, oblivious, and condescending "moderates" squirm and lose all influence that they may have once had.

Wonderful election season.

You love this election season because some people on Atlas you dislike lost their "influence" over...something important, I assume. Really?

I think casting it in those terms just makes you a part of what you say you hate.

I meant "moderates" as in Republican Party moderates, and in some way Democratic Party moderates (although I dislike Sanders). The Atlas moderates being humiliated is just a side-benefit.

Oh. Given how you wrote that I assumed you meant pathetic moderates on this subforum (that seems to have been a popular notion as of late). Never mind then.

[Lief 🗽]

Glad that people are finally calling out this discredited fraud. Saw him on MSNBC last week talking about TRUMP. He was sweating LIKE A DOG.

[muon2]

I thought these were the two most interesting quotes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I put them together I can construct a narrative. Early on Trump's name recognition fueled a increase in poll numbers. That in turn led to more media and more poll support in a cycle of positive reinforcement. When the primaries were still months away the party establishment could be down on Trump, but was content to see who would emerge as their preferred candidate.

The establishment presumed that one of the more traditional candidates would be running first or second as the New Year approached. However, January found Trump and Cruz well ahead of the pack. Cruz was the one candidate less acceptable to the establishment than Trump, so by elimination they had to take Trump seriously as a nominee. That recognition by the establishment in turn led to a new round of support as regular Pub voters took a cue from the words of establishment leaders.

[Torie]

I thought these were the two most interesting quotes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I put them together I can construct a narrative. Early on Trump's name recognition fueled a increase in poll numbers. That in turn led to more media and more poll support in a cycle of positive reinforcement. When the primaries were still months away the party establishment could be down on Trump, but was content to see who would emerge as their preferred candidate.

The establishment presumed that one of the more traditional candidates would be running first or second as the New Year approached. However, January found Trump and Cruz well ahead of the pack. Cruz was the one candidate less acceptable to the establishment than Trump, so by elimination they had to take Trump seriously as a nominee. That recognition by the establishment in turn led to a new round of support as regular Pub voters took a cue from the words of establishment leaders.

Yup, and thus the "playing with fire" strategy, the subject of the other thread I put up. Take Cruz out, and then try to clear the lanes for one candidate to take on Trump one on one, and blast the sh*t out of Trump, and try to tear him to shreds. Using Cruz to take Trump out, might have a greater chance of success, but as you say, that would be like cutting one's head off, to cure a migraine headache.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Everyone on this pathetic subforum has been wrong every step of the way. I just love seeing the patronizing, oblivious, and condescending "moderates" squirm and lose all influence that they may have once had.

Untrue! I called Walker's early demise back in June!
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=214613.msg4634244#msg4634244

(Admittedly, I've been off about Trump's popularity and the establishment's chances to recover. For any more, we'll have to wait and see until the actual voting starts, I think.)

[Skye]

Trump's strength was underestimated from the start. Few (if any) saw him as a real contender to the nomination. Granted, his poll numbers weren't very good from the start, it's their rise and durability what shocked many.

I think, basically, that this wonderful quote simplifies what happened with Donald:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It applies to pundits as well.

Needless to say that, if Trump manages to cruise to the nomination, everyone is going to look at what went wrong.

[emailking]

Yes, I know, Lief is going to get really hot and bothered about this article. So be it. The problem is that Silver is using multiple ingredients for his prognostications, rather than just data, just like ordinary mortals do without black boxes. And he seems quite likely to have been wrong. The establishment has proved surprisingly toothless, at least so far. Sure, in the end, events may salvage Silver, but for the moment, he's just been wrong, just like to pick somebody at random, a forumite here who goes by the screen name "Torie."  Even the best of us can be wrong, so be merciful please, with malice towards none, and charity for all. Thank you.

Nate has never said Trump won't be the nominee. He has said to be cautious about simply believing early polls at face value. His model runs have predicted non-trivial chances that Trump will be the nominee. So what do you mean when you say he's "wrong"? That he thought something was unlikely which now appears more likely than it once was? Because anybody could have told you that would happen. There were what 17 some candidates in the race? They were all unlikely statistically according to his models. Obviously some of them would become individually more likely as people dropped out of the race. Moreover, the "frontrunner" if there is one, becomes more likely to win as the primaries draw nearer and the polls become more accurate historically.

Yes he's "wrong" in that someone who was once unlikely is going to be the nominee. If that was Fiorina or Kasich or something you probably wouldn't care. But because he had to talk about Trump so much it gives the appearance, I guess, that he didn't know what he was talking about. :shrugs:

Sure, he may get a lot of unfair criticism, but on the flipside: When he's right, he is lauded as a genius, even when his statistical modeling barely differs from a simple polling average.

It's irrelevant though. He doesn't ask to be lauded and doesn't seem to really care as far as I can tell. Criticism should be dolled out on the merits, not to balance the scales.

Glad that people are finally calling out this discredited fraud. Saw him on MSNBC last week talking about TRUMP. He was sweating LIKE A DOG.

I saw that MSNBC appearance too and he literally was not sweating. He was calm and collected the entire time and even admitted it now seems like things may be swinging towards Trump since the establishment is (apparently) not going to fight him, opting to fight Cruz instead. I have never seen anyone call him a "fraud" except you.

[Angel of Death]

I don't understand this demented desire of people and especially the media to hype someone or something straight into the stratosphere, only to tear him/her/it down with equal fervor the next day.

So Nate is on track to miss the black swan that is known as Donald John Trump (which BTW is still not a foregone conclusion as of this moment). So what? In his own words:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Beezer]

Guy should stick to telling us where to find America's best burrito.

[Broken System]

I think what we are all forgetting is that Nate Silver didn't gain credibility making predictions off of the top of his head. His political formulas on the night before the election is what made him so successful. His interactive 2016 election forecast may very well end up being accurate again. As we can see though, the man has almost no insight in knowing how an election will turn out in the long run.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Putting up hypotheses based on data and testing them isn't "wrong".

Since polls are generally very unreliable in primaries compared to general elections, trying to put in more data makes sense.

But I guess joining the latest lynch mob to shout in unison is more fun for some people.

Well, he has seemed awfully certain about this, showing little indications of considering arguments that ran counter to his conclusions (and making a lot of dubious arguments himself, such as the idea that Trump as a candidate was more or less equivalent to earlier "anti-establishment candidate" (none of whom shared Trump's level of support over time, his celebrity status, and probably lots of other factors). Now that Silver is starting to backtrack, at the very last moment, I hardly think he should be considered the victim of a "lynch mob".

And on the flipside, when he's right he is largely lauded as a genius, even when his statistical modeling barely differs from a simple polling average.

Those are different points. I agree Silver has seemed reluctant to admit Trump is doing well.

What I take issue with is the constant ridicule of him not just looking at polling data. I find that line of attack pretty silly.

I also think it's generally petty to hate on people because other people laud them as geniuses. I guess the saintly users on Atlas Forum would have refused lucrative contracts with the media out of principle but I harbour no such self-illusions. If people proclaimed me the Messiah for pointing out obvious things I'd cash that check.

It's not that he's not just looking at polling data, it's that his non-polls data this year is garbage. "Endorsement points" is an absurd premise worse than most pbrower stuff.

[emailking]

It's not that he's not just looking at polling data, it's that his non-polls data this year is garbage. "Endorsement points" is an absurd premise worse than most pbrower stuff.

I think you might be looking at that the wrong way. If a candidate gets a whole bunch of endorsements, that tells you who the establishment is willing throw their weight behind,  which probably does tend to affect the result I hope we can agree? He's not saying necessarily that endorsements make voters to change their minds. Correlations can (emphasis can) be predictive even if there are not causal links.

[BlueSwan]

Silver made two fundamental errors with regards to Trump.

1) He basically chose to ignore polls and go with his gut feeling, thereby repeating the mistake that he has often himself accused other political analysts of making and neglecting the qualities which made him a good number cruncher in the first place. Silvers forté was always in crunching numbers. As a political analyst he is no better than all the others who go by their gut and then interpret the facts to allign with their gut. This is the stuff that Dick Morris is made of.

2) He NEVER understood the appeal of Trump. The appeal of Trump is not that he is a celebrity. It is not that he is anti-establishment. It is not that he is a novelty. It is not that he gets 90% of the media attention. All of those facts contribute to his popularity, but the heart of his appeal is his alpha male persona. True alpha male politicians can be incredibly popular with the general public, as shown by the likes of Berlusconi in Italy, Putin in Russia or indeed, Hitler in Germany.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It's not that he's not just looking at polling data, it's that his non-polls data this year is garbage. "Endorsement points" is an absurd premise worse than most pbrower stuff.

I think you might be looking at that the wrong way. If a candidate gets a whole bunch of endorsements, that tells you who the establishment is willing throw their weight behind,  which probably does tend to affect the result I hope we can agree? He's not saying necessarily that endorsements make voters to change their minds. Correlations can (emphasis can) be predictive even if there are not causal links.

And look at all the good that establishment support did for Jeb!...

[The Mikado]

One of these days we'll tell our grandchildren that we saw Donald Trump perform in his prime in the same way people speak of seeing Michael Jordan or Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong or...um...someone who didn't use performance enhancing drugs who dominated their field. Trump gets the demographic he's playing to on a level that's not even conscious: he isn't giving the GOP what they want. He's giving the GOP what they never knew they wanted. After he wins the primary, he'll do the same with the country at large.

Underestimate Trump at your peril. He is dead serious and is a man of vast talent and absolutely ruthless cutthroat instinct.