Leave Nate Silver ALONE!!!!
In defense of Nate Silver â and basic math Pundits taking pot shots at the New York Times stats whiz need to take remedial math BY PAUL F. CAMPOS
As a great philosopher once observed, âmath class is tough!â
This insight has been confirmed numerous times in the past few weeks, as various pundits have taken innumerate pot shots at Nate Silver, the New York Times blogger and author, who as of today estimates that President Obama has a 77.4 percent chance of winning re-election next week.
The Villager gossip site Politico has featured several criticisms from its stable of contributors, who in the great tradition of political journalism have not allowed their ignorance of a subject â in this case probability theory â to keep them from opining on it.
Behold the wit and wisdom of Josh Gerstein and Dylan Byers: Gerstein asks, âIsnât the basic problem with the Nate Silver prediction in question, and the critique, that it puts a percentage on a one-off event?â Meanwhile, Byers concludes that, âshould Mitt Romney win on Nov. 6, itâs difficult to see how people can continue to put faith in the predictions of someone who has never given that candidate anything higher than a 41 percent chance of winning.â
Clearly itâs time for some remedial stats classes. Letâs start with a quick quiz. Suppose a weather forecasting model predicts that the chance of rain in Chicago tomorrow is 75 percent. How do we determine if the model produces accurate assessments of probabilities? After all, the weather in Chicago tomorrow, just like next weekâs presidential election, is a âone-off event,â and after the event the probability that it rained will be either 100 percent or 0 percent. (Indeed, all events that feature any degree of uncertainty are one-off events â or to put it another way, if an event has no unique characteristics it also features no uncertainties).
(cont. at link)
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/07/2012|
I want him to pound my ass while assuring me Obama has a 99% chance of winning.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/31/2012|
The right wing is terrified of this man. He screws up all the pre-fix narrative.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/01/2012|
R2, do you mind my pounding his ass while he's pounding yours?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/01/2012|
The right wing hates math.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/01/2012|
It is a good article that sums up the attacks against Silver, they are being made by people who aren't even trying to understand what he actually does. Goes along with the Ring-wing being anti-math/science though.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/01/2012|
I think the reaction to Christ Christie from the reichwing is all you need to know about how pathetic the GOP has become.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/01/2012|
Don't mind at all, R4. Sounds kinda hot, actually. When he cums inside me, I want him to yell that we're going to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, too. (I know, it's a fantasy.)
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/01/2012|
I was told there would be no math.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/01/2012|
Nate is adorable. I would cuddle with him and sniff him while he analyzes my polling...
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/02/2012|
The Times now has an article attacking him for his bet with Scarborough.
Everyone is attacking Nate lately.
It's homophobia and resentment because he accurately predicts an Obama win.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/02/2012|
I love reading the comments on his blog. Morons accuse Silver of "over polling" democrats. They can't read.
Nate Silver doesn't DO any polling. He reads the polls that are already out there, weighs them by their past performance and methods then averages the results.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/02/2012|
[quote] It's homophobia and resentment because he accurately predicts an Obama win.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/02/2012|
Why political journalists can’t stand Nate Silver: The limits of journalistic knowledge
TL;DR: Political journalists are skeptical of Nate Silver because they don’t understand and don’t trust the means by which he knows what he knows. And they don’t understand it because it’s completely different from journalists have always known things, and how they’ve claimed authority to declare those things to the public.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/02/2012|
Darwin's evolution math is a tool of the Anti-Moroni. Creationist math is the only Latter Day and Earlier Day Christian approach to show the truth of how my Mitt is going to win this thing despite all those pesky stinky voters who will walk and drive to the polls instead of properly cantering there.
I hate the devil's math.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/02/2012|
ONce again Republicans decry the knowledge of experts over THEIR OWN people WHO ... YOU KNOW "KNOW THINGS!"
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/02/2012|
Nate can coo soft (or hard) polling numbers in my ear anytime.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/02/2012|
I just googled what Nate Silver looked like for the first time - hottie! Go to it, guys! :)
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/07/2012|
I so want Nate inside of me!
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/07/2012|
Nate nailed it - got every state right! Wish for a bit of makeover, though. Seem slim under that cheap baggy jacket that he seems to wear for every interview, great skin, adorable smile.
Updated Salon article below.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/07/2012|
I offer to suck Nate Silver's cock in Macy's window.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/07/2012|
He and his evil weapon of doom (math and common sense) are the Lex Luther to their Superman. And their Superman lost. Oh, how he lost.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/07/2012|
I hope Nate bags all the dick and ass he can handle.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/07/2012|
Gizmodo salutes Nate Silver:
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/07/2012|