2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumToday's Nate's 538 2016 Primary Polls-Only Forecast: Iowa-Hillary-66%, Bernie-34%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Which you know but I am pointing out to others.
You could lead 51-49 and have a 99% chance of winning, technically
The actual numbers are closer.
66-32. Tomorrow it will 32-66. Thr next day 66-32 again. I thino the pollsters are having fun with us.
riversedge
(70,282 posts)The odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily.
Read more: How this works »
UPDATED 5:03 PM EST | Jan 15, 2016
L Iowa Democratic caucuses
According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has an 82% chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.
Polls-plus forecast
Polls-only forecast
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Or would we see prevarications then about how Iowa doesn't matter?
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Sorry, but I don't believe it unless his polling included only Hillary supporters.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)These numbers are what Nate Silver claims are each candidate's odds of winning based on recent polls. Nearly all of the recent polls have the race within single digits except for one from Gravis that has Hillary with a 21 point lead. The Gravis poll is so far out of line with the other polls that it is almost certainly junk, but because it is a pretty new poll and Nate Silver is giving it a lot of weight which is certainly skewing the results here.
Bottom line is that Selzer which is considered the gold standard has Hillary leading by only 2%, Quinnipiac which is another highly respected poll has Bernie leading by 5%. If it were not for the Gravis outlier Silver's numbers would be a lot closer.
I would not worry about Silver's numbers, this is a very close race and Bernie has a very good chance of winning.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)explanation...it seemed from the OP title "Primary Polls-Only Forecast" that it was a "poll" to me but I admit I didn't click the link because the numbers (if a poll) were obviously incredibly off so I just discounted it immediately.
To be completely honest with you I was never worried about it as I am pretty confident that, barring any election shenanigans, Bernie will be the nominee.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)to hope some rubes would read his crap and take it seriously enough to change their
vote to "the inevitable winner" <--NOT.
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)fair enough. I didn't realize Mr. Silver had two different indices. my bad.
He's still full of crap, and his 'predictions' i predict are going to look foolish in
hind-sight on Feb 2nd.
I'm sure he'll have some equally implausible 'explanation' for it as well.
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Nate Silver fared terribly in Thursday's UK election: In his pre-election forecast, he gave 278 seats to Conservatives and 267 to Labour. Shortly after midnight, he was forecasting 272 seats for Conservatives and 271 for Labour. But when the sun rose in London on Friday, Conservatives had an expected 329 seats, against Labour's 233.
The fault, Silver claimed, was with the polling: "Its becoming increasingly clear that pre-election polls underestimated how well Conservatives would do and overestimated Labours result," the statistician guru wrote in the wee hours of the morning. (He also overestimated the Liberal Democrats' result by roughly 20 seats).
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/nate-silver-polls-are-failing-us-206799
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)"Back-peddling" (sic) what?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)the exception
Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)Today's numbers are same as 1/15/16.