• commandar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    A lot of other models were saying something ridiculous like Clinton had 95% chance to win or something. Nate Silver’s model seems better than others based on this, if anything.

    The constant attacks on how 538’s model performed in 2016 says more about statistics literacy than it does about the model.

    There is plenty to criticize Nate Silver for. Take your pick. Personally, the political nihilism that’s increasingly flirted with “anti-woke” sentiment is good enough for me. Some people might prefer taking issue with the degenerate gambling. The guy has pumped out plenty of really dumb hot takes over the years, so you have your options.

    But his models, historically, have performed relatively well if you understand that they’re models and not absolute predictors.

    • showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree with your take on the old 538 model, but if you read Nate’s new substack it become pretty clear that he’s been ‘captured’. Almost all of his post seem to fairly anti-Harris in their biases and it feels like all of his writings are really meant for one person, that person being the owner of Polymarket who he has a very large consulting contract. What these biases are doing to the Model I don’t know but the new model at 538 which was built from the ground up by other statisticians consistently trends about 10-20% higher odds for Harris taking the election.