Nate Silver is currently losing it on Twitter because of everyone calling out his Thiel connection

Bette.

He must be a Datalounger.

That humorless Aspie is quite bitchy.

"Thiel also invested in Twitter/X" isn't the great riposte they think it is.

Completely Mortifying Exposure absolutely ruins his “brand”

Great responses from Nate Silver.

Bette Midler's tweet falls under the category of slander.

Funny, just a week or so ago he had Kamala with a greater possibility of winning. And everyone was fine with him.

If you don't like Nate Silver don't read what he has to say. There are plenty of other pollsters out there. Pick the ones that show Kamala winning and make yourself happy.

He's said before that he doesn't fit in with the gay community, but he argues with Midler as if he's been waiting his whole life for the opportunity to publicly slam "For the Boys."

God "I don't fit in the with gay community" is such a fucking red flag. They're usually humorless and uptight and bad at sex.

It figures Nate is one of those.

His underwear probably has more skid marks on it than Indianapolis Motor Speedway!

I love Bette Midler!

R7 That he went all the way back to 1991 and dug up her being eclipsed by Jodie Foster as an ad hominem attack is hilarious.

Silly Silver. If anyone was second place to Jodie in 1992 it was DL fave Susan Sarandon.

Never fight with Bette Midler.

It is a utterly deceptive strategy since time immemorial to call elections early so people don't bother to vote because they feel that their votes won't count as the election has already been won.

Historically, getting out the vote has benefited democratic candidates. By calling elections early or giving the impression that the tide is so far in favor of one candidate would likely depress voter turnout.

Nate's disingenuously pretending like someone like him could not use "statistics" to influence voter turnout.

By taking money from people who have a clear agenda, he's damaged his credibility. I no longer trust his analyses.

Nate is in hyper-publicity mode because he has a new-released, or soon to be, book out and he can’t afford to have his professional bona fides questioned.

He obviously is doing the PR himself however because a professional brand manager would never react with a pissy tone like the response tweet to Bette Midler.

Nate, the only appropriate response from a gay boy like you is HISSSSSSSS.

And of course he's defended by Ro Khanna. That guy's particular brand of awfulness tags him as a Tulsi Gabbard in waiting.

R6 = Nate "Natalie" Silver

Give it up, Nate, and start a food influencer channel. You'll contribute more to the society that way.

Nate Silver's collapse is complete.

His credibility is completely shot.

No one will buy what he's selling, because everyone knows now that he's bought and paid for by Thiel, for the Trump campaign.

LOSER.

My partner says Nate's book is such a bore he couldn't finish it. On the other hand, he read far enough for Silver to reveal his douchiness.

Nate rhapsodizes about his uncle who started some business and, being such a cool, admirable scammer, he got his employees' paychecks back by getting them drunk and running a weekly crap game. Finally the wives formed a mob and told him to knock it off.

Who should join him and Thiel to complete the trifecta of sociopathic gay incels?

[quote] Completely Mortifying Exposure absolutely ruins his “brand”

His horrible comb over or combed from the back to the front of his head, ruined his brand.

You guys really need to ask yourselves if you hate Nate now because he’s not giving you the numbers or the projections you want to see for the candidate you support.

Nate and pretty much all the staff at FiveThirtyEight had an unpleasant breakup. That’s why he went solo. Part of it was, they strongly disagreed with how he wanted to weight things pollwise.

The latest poll number on Nate’s credibility : 😩

R6 loves European far right and will jump on any thread where he can stir shit (he doesn't post anything non-political.) That automatically renders his numerous ramblings over multiple threads irrelevant.

R24 Never liked the way he, or anyone, becomes such a Nostradamus based on their fetish of math models. Probably anyone could have predicted most of his victories, and the one he got wrong lots of people predicted. Never cared that he showed Harris ahead, I knew he would flip it at some point since he polls every 7 seconds. He's useless.

Never in modern history has there been a less sexually desirable individual than Nate Silver.

See what idiots like R27 do? They are incapable of coming up with a cogent argument. For his delicate mind, the post at R6 is "shit stirring".

You’d need a gallon of Dawn to get the first layer of grease out of his head. He’s like a baby duck on the Exxon Valdez.

All those billionaire patrons and not one can toss him to a decent stylist?

[quote]You guys really need to ask yourselves if you hate Nate now because he’s not giving you the numbers or the projections you want to see for the candidate you support.

As I posted at R6, when he had Kamala as the one most likely to win, everyone was fine with it. At least be honest about that.

And anyway, if Trump fucks up tonight...and the odds are high that he will....watch Kamala take the lead again at Nate Silver.

Thiel tends to help ugly gay guys fail upward. It reminds me of a line by Mario Cantone on SATC: "Ugly sex is hot!!"

He’s either a lousy pollster who never gets it right or someone worth paying attention to. It can ‘t just be he sucks if he predicts a Trump win and is amazing when he goes with Harris. Pick a lane. I personally never pay any attention to his predictions.

People have such low expectations for Trump that if he holds it together they’ll announce him as the winner. The bar is set incredibly low for him like a child with special needs.

[quote]Who should join him and Thiel to complete the trifecta of sociopathic gay incels?

Ahem.

He smells. Not a metaphor... he smells like rotting meat.

[quote]It is a utterly deceptive strategy since time immemorial to call elections early so people don't bother to vote because they feel that their votes won't count as the election has already been won.

Agreed 100%. Except that's not at all what Nate is doing. If he's working for Peter Thiel, his bosses obviously *want* ridiculously optimistic projections about Trump's performance, considering how LITERALLY EVERY other polling firm – including Rasmussen FFS! – has nothing even remotely close to Nate's projection of Trump having a 60%+ chance of winning the electoral college.

[quote]Nate is in hyper-publicity mode because he has a new-released, or soon to be, book out and he can’t afford to have his professional bona fides questioned.

Which is the other weird part: he'll get hammered based on what he's already said. If he's somehow managed to call a *second* election that no one else got right (meaning Obama's), and Trump wins in a landslide, Nate will face self-fulfilling-prophecy charges from Democrats, and history will look as poorly on them as it does on Robert E. Lee. Trumpists will buy his books left and right, but that isn't really a good thing.

If he's wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if he's murdered as a result. No, I am not kidding. Trumpists will instantly tag him as a "Democrat plant" – they're doing so already, actually – and accuse him of doing what R14 suggested: posting a ridiculously optimistic polling result to dissuade Republicans from voting. If you still think this is "too much," I'll remind you that these cretins came remarkably close to MURDERING OUR PRIOR VP on Jan. 6.

Honestly, Nate's actions are inexplicable, even after accounting for both his new (Thiel-funded) website and book. I can only assume his ego has grown to Trump-level proportions: there is no valid statistical argument that ANYONE (even Trump) has a 60%+ chance of winning the EC with the race still so tight (and changing) in every battleground state. OTOH he admittedly survived fucking up the last *two* presidential elections, so maybe that's contributing to his ego bloat.

I agree, R24. I see this wishful thinking every election cycle. "Things don't look good for my candidate, so the polls are wrong." The reasons why the polls are "wrong" change constantly. Frankly, I am pessimistic about this election because I'm pessimistic about the hold that stupidity, ignorance, and hostility have taken over my fellow Americans. I still think Kamala is a wonderful candidate whom everyone should be glad to vote for if they had their heads screwed on straight, but I thought the same about Hillary. I do feel like this is 2016 all over again. We have a great, experienced, intelligent candidate who's still going to be hated by at least 45% of the voters.

That said, I have to add the obligatory "But I'll do everything I can to make sure Trump doesn't win." I'm donating (to down-ticket and out-of-state candidates as well) and writing postcards to swing-state voters.

[quote]You guys really need to ask yourselves if you hate Nate now because he’s not giving you the numbers or the projections you want to see for the candidate you support.

I don't think this is the case at all. While his prediction certainly generated some panic, the criticism he's getting is that he's extremely cagey in explaining his methodology. Some of the criticism of his poll weighting and why he factors in lower support from women/minority voters compared with other polls seems very valid.

I think it's very reasonable to call out someone's connections to the gambling industry as a potential explanation. It is a significant conflict of interest.

Allan Lichtman predicts that Kamala Harris will win.

Is everyone OK with him?

So we hate Nate Silver now?

You can’t not like someone you never liked, R42.

OK. Thanks. I'll add him to the spreadsheet.

It doesn’t matter who he says is doing better, there needs to be a clear wall between betting companies and polling companies. It’s as corrupt as having umpires in baseball running sports betting books.

unless my candidate is ahead.

[quote]It doesn’t matter who he says is doing better, there needs to be a clear wall between betting companies and polling companies.

Nate Silver is not a polling company.

Like I blame Oprah for Dr. Phil, I blame Rachel Maddow for Nate Silver.

A boy who cried "Wolf!" one too many times.

Not really R46.

Nate Silver makes his living as a professional analyzer of polls. You can quibble if that makes polling company, or some other descriptor that is functionally equivalent, but it is clearly corrupt to also be on the gambling side and it should be illegal.

What an idiot!

Now, even the people who didn’t know he was sucking at Thiel’s teat now know.

The Streisand Effect.

LITERALLY EVERY other polling firm – including Rasmussen FFS! – has nothing even remotely close to Nate's projection of Trump having a 60%+ chance of winning the electoral college.

This has a two-fold purpose.

1. To talk up Trump's chances, so give the impression that he has more support than he actually does, during the campaign.

2. To use as "stop the steal" "evidence" after he loses the election.

That way, Trump has all his bases covered.

[quote]Nate Silver makes his living as a professional analyzer of polls. You can quibble if that makes polling company, or some other descriptor that is functionally equivalent, but it is clearly corrupt to also be on the gambling side and it should be illegal.

He does not conduct polls.

He is a self-appointed political analyst.

He is giving HIS OPINION on the state of the race.

You're quite the idiot if you think that should be illegal.

[quote]LITERALLY EVERY other polling firm – including Rasmussen FFS! – has nothing even remotely close to Nate's projection of Trump having a 60%+ chance of winning the electoral college.

Why are you comparing Nate Silver to Rasmussen?

Once again: Nate Silver is not a polling organization. He does not conduct polls. Rasmussen conducts polls.

I liked For The Boys.

Silver is a prostitute. Well, water finds its own level eventually.

He's not going to get the kin of money from Thiel that Scxhock did for his bodywork.

He is smart, but he is going into tilt mode.

Nate Silver on Twitter post debate:

"Big win for Harris, as predicted by @Polymarket and pretty much everyone else."

Peter Thiel's Polymarket post debate:

Popular Vote Winner 2024:

Kamala Harris 73%

Donald Trump 26%

[quote]I thought the first 10 minutes or so, focused on the economy, were actually pretty good for Trump — but there may be a fatigue issue, as there was with Biden. We didn’t see much “A-game” after that.

Nate: never mind "For the Boys," tonight was Trump's "Jinxed." ALL F-game.

Has he consulted RFK Jr in order to fine tune his predictions?

As predicted by this gambling site, which I am not disclosing is a gambling site.

[quote]Bette Midler's tweet falls under the category of slander.

It was a question, not a declaration.

I wonder if RFK Jr has been driving around loading up his trunk with dog carcasses? Watch out Central Park, I guess?

[quote]As predicted by this gambling site, which I am not disclosing is a gambling site.

What are you talking about?

Polymarket IS a betting site. "Polymarket is a decentralized prediction market platform that allows users to place bets on world events."

R1, that must be the gayest thing I've seen all year.

I don’t blame him for being a cunt. Partisans on both sides want the political news bent to their will. When it isn’t, they cry “corruption.”

You mean like the MAGAT crybabies are doing this morning, R68?

Suggesting that ABC's broadcast license be removed, and the moderators be criminally charged??

Hahaha.

Don't give us this "both sides" bullshit.

Right-wing MAGATS are the most corrupt of all.

They demand everything be bent in their favor, and if it isn't, then "lock them up!!"

FUCKING. CRYBABIES.

Someone simultaneously making money on activities that potentially impact an outcome while also making money off of betting on that same v outcome IS corruption.

[quote] You mean like the MAGAT crybabies are doing this morning, [R68]?

Yes.

Right now Datalounge is accusing The NY Times of supporting Trump because it is reporting that undecided voters are not all sold on Harris. It IS both sides that do this.

Nate Silver sounds butthurt. Poor little Thiel proxy.

[quote] Right now Datalounge is accusing The NY Times of supporting Trump because it is reporting that undecided voters are not all sold on Harris. It IS both sides that do this.

Oh, honey, bless your little bothsiderist heart. I just expect them to report on what everybody SAW AND HEARD last night and not go on a Cletus safari in Bumfucke, Indiana.

[quote] Right now Datalounge is accusing The NY Times of supporting Trump because it is reporting that undecided voters are not all sold on Harris

No, that is NOT why we are "accusing" the NYT of supporting Trump.

It's because all of their articles ARE in support of Trump. And that's based on FACT, not fiction.

How do you think our favorite meme popped up here?

"Polls are showing Democrats gaining on Republicans. And why that's bad news for Kamala Harris."

Because that's EXACTLY what the NYT does.

Right wing rag.

You are proving my point, gripers. Keep it up.

Oh, we are just "this close" to shutting the door on the chapter of this insane "both sides do it" nonsense. From Dick Cheney to AOC, the very broad spectrum of American citizens see and understand the assignment. Turn away from the dark temptation to authoritarianism. And self-serving sycophants like Silver will be harmed, and perhaps swept aside in the process.

Nate Silver is gay? Sad.

R78 My own opinion is that he was incel before there were incels. He might possibly pay for sex, but you really don't want to know the details.

[quote]Someone simultaneously making money on activities that potentially impact an outcome while also making money off of betting on that same v outcome IS corruption.

Either you're trolling or you are just plain stupid. I think it's the latter.

There have always been betting markets on elections. It's nothing new. What corruption?

And Nate Silver is allowed to have HIS method for predicting an outcome based on factors that HE feels are deciding. He's one of MANY voices out there. Good grief.

As I posted at R32: "And anyway, if Trump fucks up tonight...and the odds are high that he will....watch Kamala take the lead again at Nate Silver."

Two things that are perfectly fine alone when performed by unrelated parties can be a conflict of interest and corruption when performed by the same person or financially closely related people.

The fact that you’d flunk business ethics 101 R80 doesn’t make me a troll.

Rather than addressing the troll question, R81, perhaps a little tidying of your point will be helpful for those not seeing the point.

It is unethical for a person in Silver's position to bet, not because such action in implicitly "corrupt," as you claim, but because it causes the questions you have raised. Avoiding the appearance or possibility that untoward activities are involved with mixing one's (high-profile/influential/high-stakes) job about election analyses and forecasts with gambling on the outcomes is paramount.

Silver, with his idiosyncratic personality, may not get it, because he is self-assured of his personal code of honor and ethics. That's not enough.

He does not have a "right" to have this potential, at best, conflict in interests hidden. The people who pay him well to deliver his analyses have a say, one would think, as part of his contracts, because he is inadvertently smudging their own status, because they are using and working his analyses to their own advantage, and have a stake in the transparency.

Stop, it, Nate. Politics is not sports, and why take the risk to your reputation? Plus you look like an unwashed cellar-dweller reacting as you do.

Yes, pollsters (I've been one) tend to be the same kind of car salesmen that politicians invariably are. That doesn't make taking the matter this far okay, Nate, no matter how assured you are of your compartmentalized brain.

R82 does it again. Nate Silver is NOT a pollster.

[quote]Stop, it, Nate. Politics is not sports, and why take the risk to your reputation? '

Total strawman argument.

[quote]The people who pay him well to deliver his analyses have a say, one would think, as part of his contracts, because he is inadvertently smudging their own status

Nate Silver:

We'll see where the model is in 2 weeks, but 4 huge mistakes for the Trump campaign so far:

1. Vance

2. Meandering convention speech, blowing moment of goodwill

3. Not prepared for Harris swap

4. Clearly not prepped well for tonight's debate and/or incapable of sustained A-game

5. Donald Trump being an enormous 300 lb pile of shit

I wouldn’t fuck him with my dick.

Peter Thiel is an enemy of the state who seeks to topple democracy and become a feudal warlord. Anyone and everyone connected to him or on his payroll is to never be trusted.

R72 No, it isn't reporting that - it's misrepresenting an interview with 3-4 people as a serious report on how the debate impacted undecided voters. There isn't any serious data about that yet.