Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Leave Nate Silver ALONE!!!!

In defense of Nate Silver — 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, “math class is tough!”

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 – in this case probability theory – to keep them from opining on it.

Behold the wit and wisdom of Josh Gerstein and Dylan Byers: Gerstein asks, “Isn’t the basic problem with the Nate Silver prediction in question, and the critique, that it puts a percentage on a one-off event?” Meanwhile, Byers concludes that, “should Mitt Romney win on Nov. 6, it’s 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.”

Clearly it’s time for some remedial stats classes. Let’s 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 week’s presidential election, is a “one-off event,” 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 – or to put it another way, if an event has no unique characteristics it also features no uncertainties).

(cont. at link)

by Anonymousreply 2811/07/2012

Yes, but is he gay?

by Anonymousreply 110/31/2012

I want him to pound my ass while assuring me Obama has a 99% chance of winning.

by Anonymousreply 210/31/2012

The right wing is terrified of this man. He screws up all the pre-fix narrative.

by Anonymousreply 311/01/2012

R2, do you mind my pounding his ass while he's pounding yours?

by Anonymousreply 411/01/2012

The right wing hates math.

by Anonymousreply 511/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 611/01/2012

I think the reaction to Christ Christie from the reichwing is all you need to know about how pathetic the GOP has become.

by Anonymousreply 711/01/2012

.

by Anonymousreply 811/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 911/01/2012

I was told there would be no math.

by Anonymousreply 1011/01/2012

Nate is adorable. I would cuddle with him and sniff him while he analyzes my polling...

by Anonymousreply 1111/02/2012

ww for r10

by Anonymousreply 1211/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1311/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1411/02/2012

[quote] It's homophobia and resentment because he accurately predicts an Obama win.

Bingo!

by Anonymousreply 1511/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1611/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1711/02/2012

ONce again Republicans decry the knowledge of experts over THEIR OWN people WHO ... YOU KNOW "KNOW THINGS!"

by Anonymousreply 1811/02/2012

Nate can coo soft (or hard) polling numbers in my ear anytime.

by Anonymousreply 1911/02/2012

ha ha!

by Anonymousreply 2011/07/2012

I just googled what Nate Silver looked like for the first time - hottie! Go to it, guys! :)

by Anonymousreply 2111/07/2012

I so want Nate inside of me!

by Anonymousreply 2211/07/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2311/07/2012

I offer to suck Nate Silver's cock in Macy's window.

by Anonymousreply 2411/07/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2511/07/2012

I hope Nate bags all the dick and ass he can handle.

by Anonymousreply 2611/07/2012

Gizmodo salutes Nate Silver:

by Anonymousreply 2711/07/2012

We love Nate Silver.

by Anonymousreply 2811/07/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.