Meh. Wang is better anyway.
Wang uses polling only and then applies way too much certainty in his models. If he's right, he looks smart and can bleat on about how Nate Silver adds too many bells and whistles, but when he's wrong, it can be spectacularly bad. For instance, in 2010, his model was off by
6.5x his stated standard error, which would occur by chance something like one in a billion times. Nate is much more realistic about the amount of uncertainty in prediction models.
His
current prediction for KS-Sen, Orman as 80% to win, is clearly ludicrous. A single poll of a then-purely hypothetical race is enough to make such a confident prediction on? This is exactly the sort of case where non-poll factors like "state fundamentals" really are clearly needed.
