Hillary Clinton Thread

From today’s Guardian:

Hillary Clinton has an 81% chance of winning the election to Donald Trump’s 19%, polling analyst Nate Silver said on Wednesday in his first model of the 2016 presidential election.

Silver’s calculations are based on a model that processes polling data exclusively. A second model produced by Silver’s FiveThirtyEight web site, taking in economics statistics and historical data, portrayed a slightly tighter race, at 74%-26% for Clinton.


Nate Silver was pretty accurate in predicting the outcome of the last election. He predicted that Obama would win 332 to Romney’s 206 in the electoral college.

He is extremely accurate. But this makes me nervous because the Republicans can see the same data. I wouldn’t be surprised if they replace Trump at the convention.

Nate Silver is the man who in September 2015 said Donald Trump had a 5% chance of winning the Republican nomination, per following Slate article. By January 2016, he said, “Things are lining up better for Trump than I would have imagined, however.”

Did Trump just beat expectations?

Here are some of the articles written by Nate Silver during the Republican primaries:

Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls


Why Donald Trump Isn’t A Real Candidate, In One Chart


Donald Trump’s Six Stages Of Doom


Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll


Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls — And Losing The Nomination


Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan


This doesn’t mean that Nate Silver’s prediction numbers about Clinton and Trump’s chances now are inaccurate, but look what he said about Trump during the primaries… and didn’t he appear to be convinced Trump didn’t have much of a shot to the nomination because of polls? If Nate Silver was correct in September, Donald Trump shouldn’t be the presumptive Republican nominee currently, should he?

Can you summarize your points?

In 2008 Nate Silver successfully called the outcomes of 49 out of 50 states in the general election. In 2012 he successfully called all 50.

I don’t speak for Abyssinia. But I saw the point merely being that Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee. But I would point to the 2016 Republican primary not being a Presidential year general election.

There you go, but the percentage is so high that I, myself, am wondering. He has been the name of the game for a long time.

Wow! I knew Nate has a pretty good reputation. But in that case it doesn’t look great for the man with “great” on his cap.

Politico has some pretty blunt words for how Nate Silver did in regards to the UK election last year:

Also, this regarding Nate Silver and the 2010 US midterms and the 2010 UK election:


It is looking bleak for conservatives right. I think an upset may actually happen though. If a liberal nation like Britain can vote to leave the EU, Trump can defeat Clinton in the more conservative United States.

Isn’t Nate the guy who predicted Trump would lose the GOP primary?

81% is so darn high.

And 5% is so low. :smiley:

Please explain.

Nate is automatically right. It’s not like he said Clinton has a 100% chance of winning. If Trump wins, Nate can still claim he wasn’t wrong because he’s got 19% leeway.

Huh? Good try!

I followed baseball and Nate Silver did some interesting work there as well, but I always felt that the statistical model he uses is one where his thumbs a bit on the scale (after all, there were points where Obama should have had a 100% chance of winning in 2008 and Silver still had it less than 100%. So, I take his work with a grain of salt.

That said, Clinton is in a very strong position, even a stronger one than Obama was in in either 2008 or 2012. With a good ‘get out the vote’ effort, Clinton will win. Quinnipiac’s national data is an outlier in favor of Trump and this suggests that the ‘toss-up’ states are in better shape than their polling shows. PPP recently put out data that has Clinton winning every state (Arizona is not toss-up or at least shouldn’t be). This one could be 350-190 for Clinton, which is amazing given that she is a flawed candidate.

Even I think at this stage in the game the electorals stack up easier for Clinton than for Trump. However, I’d hardly call Nate’s predictions a true prediction of what’s going to happen. He’s not being bold at all in his commentary. Someone should ask him point blank: who will win in November? Anyone can tell at this stage of the election that Clinton is leading.

Trump could very well be a Black Swan for Silver. He is inexplicable.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.