Indiana GOP/Democratic Primaries

[Clippy]

 

[in the]

I spit out my soda when Christie showed up on that 300 video. Unbelievably funny piece, an impressive.

Exactly what happened with me. I laughed so hard when Christie appeared.

I don't know if Trump would make a good President. He'll probably lose to Hillary come November. All I know is, we better eat up this election season because it'll be the most meme-tastic election in our lifetimes.

 

[in the]

Look, Silver was wrong on Trump for valid reasons. That invalidates his entire approach despite its demonstrated success.

What don't you get?

 

[Fawlty]

He's demonstrated to be very good at what he does. That's data driven rather than idolatry. Many of the examples of his bias (your example of indiana demonstrates him being wrong, not biased) date back to when the betting lines were saying the same thing he was.

I'll just have to disagree with you and Jack about Silver's predictions in the run-up up to the NY primary. I see his analysis in low-data states as requiring subjective inputs and I see his repeated underestimation of Trump, and I can't part the two. Nobody is better given data, but I'll be watching out for bias when it's lacking.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Nobody is better given data, but I'll be watching out for bias when it's lacking.

Fair enough.

 

[in the]

I'll just have to disagree with you and Jack about Silver's predictions in the run-up up to the NY primary. I see his analysis in low-data states as requiring subjective inputs and I see his repeated underestimation of Trump, and I can't part the two. Nobody is better given data, but I'll be watching out for bias when it's lacking.

That's really the best post about Silver in this thread. He's usually great but when required to go beyond strict data, he showed his bias in this primary cycle time and time again. He's still worth considering but the cult of personality that grew around him should be questioned.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I see his analysis in low-data states as requiring subjective inputs and I see his repeated underestimation of Trump, and I can't part the two.

I don't totally disagree here but would argue that rather than necessarily being bias the subjective inputs are historically based and don't properly apply to Trump.

Nativist populists aren't a new thing in the US but they're not common enough to where there's going to be enough data so Silver uses information that has been useful in the past.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Perhaps you didn't read the posts by @sodapopinski :

Nate Silver exposed in this election.

Rather than admit his own biases affected the data he himself input in his predictive formulas, he externalized those failures like a little bitch.
...
What a vag. Credibility Trumped.

I respected Silver before this election, but he really showed his bias this primary cycle.

How people could take him seriously after this, I don't know.

I can't take him seriously after this, not when his bias is obvious.

Sodapopinski was doing exactly what I asserted, dismissing Silver despite his demonstrated success because he was wrong about Trump.

I understand why you would have ignored those posts though, sodapopinski was posting stupid shit.

 

[in the]

Perhaps you didn't read the posts by @sodapopinski :




Sodapopinski was doing exactly what I asserted, dismissing Silver despite his demonstrated success because he was wrong about Trump.

I understand why you would have ignored those posts though, sodapopinski was posting stupid shit.

The infallible nature that nuthuggers like yourself have of Silver, which shows with your posts in this thread (I'm not petty enough to repost them, just go back and read), has been shattered. He's not the god you made him out to be, the ultimate authority figure who cannot be questioned.

You might try to divert the attention to me, but it doesn't change the fact that maybe the cult of personality you and others have attributed to Silver isn't so impenetrable. He's still pretty good, but he's far from some irreproachable figure at this point. He was exposed in this primary season. He let his own biases affect his predictions. No matter how much that might hurt your feelings, it's the truth.

 

[in the]

You can't write that off as "oh golly gee guys, that was in September last year so it doesn't matter even though the race began before September last year so we shouldn't judge him by his predictions he made during the actual primary race because of reasons." Those predictions were made very recently.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The infallible nature that nuthuggers like yourself have of Silver, which shows with your posts in this thread (I'm not petty enough to repost them, just go back and read), has been shattered. He's not the god you made him out to be, the ultimate authority figure who cannot be questioned.

You might try to divert the attention to me, but it doesn't change the fact that maybe the cult of personality you and others have attributed to Silver isn't so impenetrable. He's still pretty good, but he's far from some irreproachable figure at this point. He was exposed in this primary season. He let his own biases affect his predictions. No matter how much that might hurt your feelings, it's the truth.

Now this post by you is a strawman, glad that you're pretending to take the high road so as to not admit you were wrong (which, amusingly, is one of the faults you pointed at vis-a-vis Trump). I'm happy to let it go but, in the future, try not to assert logical fallacies where there are none.

As for Silver being infallible, if you look back one of my comments was that I actually find their errors to often be more informative than when they're right. I was also very, very skeptical of their insertion of economic and other metrics into their models prior to the 2012 election but it turns out it did improve model performance.

 

[in the]

He can't even take blame when he's consistently wrong about a topic. He has to blame everyone else but his own self. It comes off as narcissistic.

 

[in the]

Now this post by you is a strawman, glad that you're pretending to take the high road so as to not admit you were wrong (which, amusingly, is one of the faults you pointed at vis-a-vis Trump). I'm happy to let it go but, in the future, try not to assert logical fallacies where there are none.

As for Silver being infallible, if you look back one of my comments was that I actually find their errors to often be more informative than when they're right. I was also very, very skeptical of their insertion of economic and other metrics into their models prior to the 2012 election but it turns out it did improve model performance.

"Silver was wrong on Trump for valid reasons..."

Bullshit, and you didn't even explain what those valid reasons were. If he used unbiased stats instead of "reasons," perhaps he wouldn't had been so wrong this primary season.

"That invalidates his entire approach despite its demonstrated success."

So he was completely wrong about this primary season, and that doesn't affect his demonstrated success? Face it, he has lost some credibility this primary season. He consistently made major predictions that turned out to be wrong. His whole job is to make accurate predictions. He failed. Does that mean he will never make accurate predictions again? Of course not. It definitely means that from this point on, he has opened himself up to allowing personal biases affect his inputs and thus, his predictions.

Whether you like it or not, that is going to hurt any statistician's credibility.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Bullshit, and you didn't even explain what those valid reasons were. If he used unbiased stats instead of "reasons," perhaps he wouldn't had been so wrong this primary season.

It had already been talked about.

 

[in the]

He's having a bit of a meltdown on Twitter. Pretty funny to watch.

 

[in the]

It had already been talked about.

"Valid reasons" lead closer to the truth, not incorrect predictions. Those wouldn't be valid reasons, they would be personal biases.

 

[UpaLoompa]

"Valid reasons" lead closer to the truth, not incorrect predictions. Those wouldn't be valid reasons, they would be personal biases.

Or, like I talked about in another post, past performance wasn't predictive of Trump's success.

 

[kpt018]

You can't write that off as "oh golly gee guys, that was in September last year so it doesn't matter even though the race began before September last year so we shouldn't judge him by his predictions he made during the actual primary race because of reasons." Those predictions were made very recently.

Wow is that really his tweets? It contradicts the stuff he has written and the models on his website.

 

[in the]

Wow is that really his tweets? It contradicts the stuff he has written and the models on his website.

I posted a direct link to that tweet just above, post #410.

 

[in the]

Or, like I talked about in another post, past performance wasn't indicative of Trump's success.

I didn't mean to come off as a dick but there's nothing wrong with loving the cult of personality around a person come unraveled yet still believing that person is pretty good (though not perfect) at what he does.

There's no true comparable level of Trump to other candidates in other elections and it also requires not taking into context the voting issues of the day. Instead of admitting he was wrong, he wants to blame everyone else. Not only does being consistently wrong make Silver look bad, so does bitching about it and externalizing blame. It shows he cares more about his reputation than it does about being truthful.