# Nate Silver / 538 Was Right **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 7, 2012, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181 "2012-11-07T05:43:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/61 "2012-11-07T17:39:01Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Could i have simply taken the last say, ten, polls on every state and come up with pretty much the same results as Silver? No. If you want to predict _the day before the election_, you could come fairly close (but he corrects for polls that aren’t as reliable or which tend to shade to one side or the other). But I think what is often missed is that his model predicted the results **months** in advance, and if you look at [the graph on his site](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) of what the model was predicting in terms of the popular vote, it didn’t fluctuate nearly as much as the [RCP average](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) of polls. Note too that even at the end, the RCP average only had Obama up 0.7, while Silver predicted a 2.5 point win–and the latter looks a lot closer to what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/62 "2012-11-07T17:44:12Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > But I think what is often missed is that his model predicted the results **months** in advance, and if you look at [the graph on his site](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) of what the model was predicting in terms of the popular vote, it didn’t fluctuate nearly as much as the [RCP average](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) of polls. This only makes sense if you believe that nothing that happened in the past few months actually had any influence on the outcome. Which seems highly unlikely to me. If you accept that later events actually had an impact, then the fact that his pre-events predictions were correct would be coincidental. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/63 "2012-11-07T17:47:39Z")
> [@The\_Dord](#): > > [You](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15671229#post15671229) [seem](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15671206#post15671206) [off](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15671114#post15671114) your [rocker](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15671195#post15671195).. and then [some](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15671067#post15671067). > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I reported that poster for what I think is thread-shitting and trollish behavior. We’ll see what the Modmins think… I’m pretty sure **gamerunknown** is being sarcastic and you’re not seeing it. However, **gamerunknown** , I will point out that Stephen Colbert’s job is taken and you may want to adjust your style if nobody is getting your message. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/64 "2012-11-07T17:49:45Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This only makes sense if you believe that nothing that happened in the past few months actually had any influence on the outcome. Which seems highly unlikely to me. > > If you accept that later events actually had an impact, then the fact that his pre-events predictions were correct would be coincidental. Still arguing that the model must have been wrong somehow? Wow, that’s truly impressive! ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/65 "2012-11-07T17:50:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This only makes sense if you believe that nothing that happened in the past few months actually had any influence on the outcome. Which seems highly unlikely to me. > > If you accept that later events actually had an impact, then the fact that his pre-events predictions were correct would be coincidental. The graph certainly seems to account for such things to me. You can see the small bounce in early September from the enthusiasm of the DNC, the HUGE crash in early October after the first debate, and the gradual rise as the second and third debates and Sandy came into play. It could be coincidental that Nate’s initial prediction closely matches the final outcome, or it could be that his model sufficiently accounts for unexpected developments. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/66 "2012-11-07T18:02:39Z")
A look at the two states Senate races Nate seems to be losing are interesting. Nate missed on North Dakota (in whatever sense a probability is a miss), but there the spolls hardly seemed to contradict his prediction. I wonder what exactly it was that caused Sam Wang to predict a D victory in North Dakota. In Montana, it is more interesting, because the poll average shows a narrow Tester win, but the state fundamentals are heavily skewed republican, which i s why he “missed” it. Now he did have a 1 in 3 chance for Tester, so it isn’t like he was well off. But more at issue is how much predictive value is added by adding in the state fundamentals overall. To be fair, Silver will be spending a lot of time trying to see if there is something that can be improved. And Nate himself has said that a mix of quantitative and qualitative analysis will provide the best predictions. The key is knowing how much of each. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/67 "2012-11-07T18:05:26Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Still arguing that the model must have been wrong somehow? Wow, that’s truly impressive! Still beating your wife? Must be tough on you these days, what with restraining orders and all … > [@Bosstone](#): > > It could be coincidental that Nate’s initial prediction closely matches the final outcome, or it could be that his model sufficiently accounts for unexpected developments. Either I’ve misunderstood you or this makes no sense. There’s no way a model can get the final percentage correct, if that final percentage is based in part on unknown future events. A model can (in theory) “sufficiently account for unexpected developements” in terms of the confidence level surrounding the prediction. But it can’t nail down the actual number if that number is to be affected by future events. If I’ve misunderstood you, please clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/68 "2012-11-07T18:15:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > A model can (in theory) “sufficiently account for unexpected developements” in terms of the confidence level surrounding the prediction. But it can’t nail down the actual number if that number is to be affected by future events. > > If I’ve misunderstood you, please clarify. It makes a lot more sense if you account for the fact that Nate Silver is probably a witch. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/69 "2012-11-07T18:18:35Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > A look at the two states Senate races Nate seems to be losing are interesting. Nate missed on North Dakota (in whatever sense a probability is a miss), but there the spolls hardly seemed to contradict his prediction. I wonder what exactly it was that caused Sam Wang to predict a D victory in North Dakota. I don’t have time to do it now, but I’d be interested in seeing a Nate Silver vs Sam Wang scorecard. Looks like Wang missed on Florida (which he called a cointoss, anyway), but nailed the popular vote totals, and did a bit better than Nate in the Senate races from what I can see. And Sam’s methodology is exclusively from polls, right? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/70 "2012-11-07T19:51:48Z")
I’m predicting a 92.8% chance of a very, very large party at Nate Silver’s house. By the way I read yesterday that he was responsible for about 20 percent of the New York Times’ web traffic in the month before the election. He’s in very good shape. ---
**Author:** ![whitetho](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whitetho/32/1059_2.png) [@whitetho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whitetho)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/71 "2012-11-07T20:24:49Z")
> [@regginbrow](#): > > What used to be on the site? According to Google’s cached copy: > [@http://natesilverwrong.com/](#): > > This website is dedicated to exposing a newly created media God by the name of “Nate Silver” who had success in sports statistics and somehow decided it was time to get into politics by correctly predicting 49 out of 50 states in the very predictable 2008 presidential elections. The last posted reader comment was “If/when Obama wins tonight, how long will this website stay up?” (The site is still down) ---
**Author:** ![2nd\_Law](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/f475e1/32.png) [@2nd\_Law](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2nd_Law)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/72 "2012-11-07T20:54:05Z")
> [@regginbrow](#): > > What used to be on the site? > **[cache:z7\_EavseiHYJ:natesilverwrong.com/ - Google Search](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:z7_EavseiHYJ:natesilverwrong.com%2F%2B&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)** ---
**Author:** ![regginbrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@regginbrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/regginbrow)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/73 "2012-11-07T23:30:15Z")
(S)He’s got a very sad and lonely Twitter account. ☹ [https://twitter.com/NateSilverwrong](https://twitter.com/NateSilverwrong) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Dord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3be4f8/32.png) [@The\_Dord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Dord)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/74 "2012-11-07T23:52:30Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m pretty sure **gamerunknown** is being sarcastic and you’re not seeing it. However, **gamerunknown** , I will point out that Stephen Colbert’s job is taken and you may want to adjust your style if nobody is getting your message. Thanks marley. I didn’t even know if he was serious or not! Back to the topic at hand. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/75 "2012-11-08T00:14:57Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > In Montana, it is more interesting, because the poll average shows a narrow Tester win, but the state fundamentals are heavily skewed republican, which i s why he “missed” it. Now he did have a 1 in 3 chance for Tester, so it isn’t like he was well off. The Libertarian vote I think is the big wildcard in the Montana races these days. I think it’s quite difficult to tease out in a poll (or casual conversation) whether a Libertarian-minded person out here is going to grudgingly vote Republican or not. They’re not going to vote “for” Obama by voting Libertarian, but they will for someone like Tester who is very pro-gun and very pro-civil liberties\*. And they did in a big way-- right now it looks like 6.5% went Libertarian, which even if it wasn’t decisive is definitely responsible for his large margin. The Lib vote was also decisive in the governor’s race. (\*And yes, I agree that thus far Obama hasn’t been particularly anti-gun and is by far the lesser of two evils on civil liberties, but that’s not the popular perception.) ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/76 "2012-11-08T00:22:34Z")
Well, at least the UnskewedPolls guy had the balls to admit he was wrong. > **['Unskewed' Pollster: 'Nate Silver Was Right, And I Was Wrong'](https://www.businessinsider.com/unskewed-pollster-dean-chambers-nate-silver-election-dick-morris-michael-barone-2012-11)** > > Pollster Dean Chambers critiques traditional polling methods, challenging Nate Silver's accuracy. > [@](#): > > Dean Chambers, the man who garnered praise from the right and notoriety on the left for his “Unskewed Polling” site, admitted today that his method was flawed. > > “Nate Silver was right, and I was wrong,” Chambers said in a phone interview. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/77 "2012-11-08T00:34:30Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Well, at least the UnskewedPolls guy had the balls to admit he was wrong. > > ['Unskewed' Pollster Dean Chambers: 'Nate Silver Was Right' - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/unskewed-pollster-dean-chambers-nate-silver-election-dick-morris-michael-barone-2012-11) Well now I feel bad. I’ve been assuming the guy was just a crank espousing an ideology, but his comments now make it plausible that he was a man with a theory which he tested and found wanting. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/78 "2012-11-08T00:47:50Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Well now I feel bad. I’ve been assuming the guy was just a crank espousing an ideology, but his comments now make it plausible that he was a man with a theory which he tested and found wanting. I assume that there’s no irony there. Remember, this is the guy who said: > [@](#): > > Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Yeah. I don’t feel bad at all. Fuck that guy. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/79 "2012-11-08T00:53:01Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Sam Wang did better in the Senate races (though he picked Florida for Romney), at least if Tester holds on to his lead (as of an hour ago) in Montana. I only found Wang’s [Princeton Election Consortium](http://election.princeton.edu/) site last week, but I prefer it to 538. If past elecitons are any guide Wang will do a wrap up and comparision post in the next week or so. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181/80 "2012-11-08T00:57:27Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve been assuming the guy was just a crank espousing an ideology, but his comments now make it plausible that he was a man with a theory which he tested and found wanting. As Nate Silver explained in a tweet: > [@](#): > > Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide!" So Dean Chambers has apparently now figured out that his +??? argument doesn’t work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-538-was-right/640181.md?page=5)