Nate Silver looks okay.

A bit of stupidity emits here, your “neener neener neener” lobbed at Nate Silver and 538, under-cutting bursts of reality that intrude as Trump begins to “make due” on his campaign promises into the real world.

I wonder if this is as accurate as your forecast models.

ow many are there 538? Your statistical modeling definitely nailed the election – BWHAAAHAAA\

In the weekend before the election, Silver’s forecasting had Trump a “routine polling error” behind Hillary Clinton.  And so he was.  He had Donald Trump’s chances of beating Hillary Clinton above those of Mitt Romney against Barack Obama, and had given the indicators (watch the polls for New Hampshire) for where you’d spot a “Trump Comeback”.  It was such that on one occasion — maybe two — I had linked Nate Silver’s pessimistic cold water as a counter-point to Larry Sabato’s more optimistic idea (The Huffington Post’s I never took seriously).

I suppose where the “statistical modeling” fell apart was on election day, as returns came in and his snake had Nevada out in the red behind the rust belt states that turned red — which looked incredibly off to me at the time because the states that match Nevada’s demographic profile — Colorado — was sticking to roughly where it was four years ago.   THAT is something I’d like explained.

But a 30 percent chance of winning the election is not a zero percent chance.

Leave a Reply