• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Nate

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
12,210
Reaction score
7,341
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Nate Silver and 538.com accurately predicted the results of every single state during the 2012 election. With their very first election forecast they give Trump a less than 20% chance of actually winning the race. This obviously puts him behind where Romney and McCain both were at the same point in their respective races. The last President to overcome a deficit close to this and win election was George H.W. Bush when he defeated Michael Dukakis. That was more of a Dukakis loss than a Bush win though. If you're counting on a Clinton meltdown I wouldn't. That seems like Trumps department.
 

a hillary indictment should improve his chances
 

Meh... he hasn't been perfect this election cycle. Pretty pointless to try and predict it already. Tons can change.
 
justabubba said:
a hillary indictment should improve his chances
Click to expand...

Which won't happen, but at this point I'm not really sure even that would change anything. Everyone knows what she's being accused of. Frankly they don't care. It's like Bill Clinton in the 90's his popularity remained throughout impeachment because people new it was all just a stupid witch hunt, and ultimately what they really cared about was the economy.
 

This would be the one and same Nate Silver who has been colossally wrong about Trump for the entire last 16 months? The same one who has been wrong at most every turn this cycle?

*Rhetorical Question*
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
This would be the one and same Nate Silver who has been colossally wrong about Trump for the entire last 16 months? The same one who has been wrong at most every turn this cycle?

*Rhetorical Question*
Click to expand...

Because - as Nate Silver himself admitted on Good Morning America this morning - he was wrong about Trump because he was ignoring the polls...that if he'd paid more attention to the polls of GOP primary voters and (in so many words) less to his own presumption that at some point even GOP voters have GOT to come to their senses...if he'd just kept to the polls as he always has otherwise, he'd have seen that Trump was going to win the nomination.

That said, barring national catastrophe, Hillary will win. And even if some right-wing wannabe Rambo assassinates her along the way, whoever's her VP pick will win...especially if it's Elizabeth Warren.
 

Sliver is still putting a lot of stock in what Insider Elites think, and in endorsements (he still thinks they are a good thing, major), so I dont think he has learned his lessons yet. I am ignoring him unless he starts being right about stuff.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Sliver is still putting a lot of stock in what Insider Elites think, and in endorsements (he still thinks they are a good thing, major), so I dont think he has learned his lessons yet. I am ignoring him unless he starts being right about stuff.
Click to expand...

In other words, you'll ignore the guy who was spot on in the 2014 midterms, 2012 election, 2010 midterms, etc. until he gets on board the Trump Train.
 
Kobie said:
In other words, you'll ignore the guy who was spot on in the 2014 midterms, 2012 election, 2010 midterms, etc. until he gets on board the Trump Train.
Click to expand...

Until he starts being right. The Lakers used to be good too but were you picking them to win last year?

Are you expecting them to win next year, to be back to the Lakers of old?

This guy looks looks to be just as lost as Jim Buss is.

The game changed, the Lakers did not.

Get serious man.
 
Last edited:

Absolute, total denial. It looks like the first wall Trump put up was around your mind.
 

Exactly.

Add to it the fact that people also tend to dislike disparate treatment of like offenses. In Hillary's case, she may have been the first SoS to set up a private email server, but the real meat (and only potentially criminal element) of the whole thing was in potentially sending classified information. And, as it turns out, she did no better or worse on that front than the last several SoS's, R and D alike. Why should she fry when they all walked? Hell, when nobody made the slightest peep about it in the past?
 
Texmex said:
Absolute, total denial. It looks like the first wall Trump put up was around your mind.
Click to expand...

Boy are you confused, the subject is Nate Silvers current comprehension of political reality, not Hawkeye, or Trump.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
This would be the one and same Nate Silver who has been colossally wrong about Trump for the entire last 16 months? The same one who has been wrong at most every turn this cycle?
Click to expand...

I have not been looking at polls much. Did Nate give a % on Trump winning anything? I can't find anything.
 

Republicans have cried wolf about the Clinton's so many times over the years people have started ignoring the cries even if they might be onto something with the emails.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Sliver is still putting a lot of stock in what Insider Elites think, and in endorsements (he still thinks they are a good thing, major), so I dont think he has learned his lessons yet. I am ignoring him unless he starts being right about stuff.
Click to expand...

He was right in 2012. No reason to think this year will be any different.
 
Wiggen said:
He was right in 2012. No reason to think this year will be any different.
Click to expand...

Things change, and he has been consistently acting clueless for a year, so there is every reason to discount his opinions for now.

Maybe it is because I am Zen that I get this and you dont, we are taught early that the truth can change, that those who dont keep up dont know that they think they know. For now I am putting Silver in that category.
 

The FBI may take care of Hillary.
 
Jack Hays said:
2016 ELECTION
[h=2]2016 General Election Forecast[/h]By Nate Silver
Click to expand...

I didn't even know anyone was projecting this early. Traditionally strong polling does not commence until well after the convention. Perhaps Nate Silver is being paid so much he feels compelled to do this? Has Sam Wang done one? Franklin? Votematic? I don't think so. Silver makes more money than all of them combined so maybe that is the reason to push it now $$$. In any case Silver, followed closely by Franklin, have been dead nuts during the last two presidential cycles in a row. I see very little payback in going anti-silver "this" early. If there is descent among the top modelers in early October I will be surprised.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The FBI may take care of Hillary.
Click to expand...

As a possible counter, who runs the democratic party? I think you could say the current president does. At least he has the most powerful sway and since he does and he is pretty bright, and since he had/has the current Secretary of the Department of Justice sitting in on his cabinet meetings, and since he has their ears, would it not make sense that Obama was pretty sure somehow that Hillary will not be indicted? That is not the same as the FBI asking for an indictment against their bosses wishes but it is pretty clear to me that Obama would have sat down Hillary and told her not to run and pushed Biden in her stead.

therefore I am fairly sure there is nothing there to destroy her run.
 
Lafayette said:
For what?
Click to expand...
for failing to secure our nation's secrets
hardly an attribute we would want in the commander-in-chief

Being Bill's wife?
Click to expand...
nothing indicates bill had anything to do with this matter
that said, there have been rumors about individuals buying government access via 'contributions' to the clinton foundation. if found to be true, then there would be a criminal nexus between the two individuals

That's reaching a bit far, doncha think ... ?
Click to expand...
not at all
it is a matter currently under investigation by the FBI
thus, no far reach to question how it would impact hillary
but you are welcome to tell us why it should be found to be so
 

Sorry, while angry, uneducated white men is a large constituency; its not a sufficient enough constituency to win the White House.
 

He got the 2012 election right, but missed 5-6 times already with Trump in the primaries..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…