Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 11:23:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination  (Read 3175 times)
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,718
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 24, 2015, 11:49:51 AM »





Somewhat subjective due to lack of an abundance of data, but still not good news for Hillary.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,917
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2015, 12:01:36 PM »

Getting sick of the Warren farce
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2015, 12:11:48 PM »

That's what happens when you make up candidates like Cuomo and Patrick.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,847
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2015, 12:17:47 PM »


People who say things like ^this^ are underestimating the ability of candidates to get in because momentum is building around them rather than vice versa.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2015, 12:43:39 PM »


People who say things like ^this^ are underestimating the ability of candidates to get in because momentum is building around them rather than vice versa.

Obama was already exploring a run and letting people pull him in. Warren is not. She hates politics and never even wanted to be a Senator as her first choice.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,074
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2015, 12:46:26 PM »


Who else is there?
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,847
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2015, 01:02:26 PM »


People who say things like ^this^ are underestimating the ability of candidates to get in because momentum is building around them rather than vice versa.

Obama was already exploring a run and letting people pull him in. Warren is not. She hates politics and never even wanted to be a Senator as her first choice.

Most of the field was already in at this point in 2008 as well. Now we have one guy in who is never going to win.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,186


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2015, 01:10:55 PM »


Aren't you the guy who still thinks Hillary isn't running? I'm confused as to who you think the Democratic nominee will be.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2015, 01:25:12 PM »


O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,917
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2015, 01:45:52 PM »


Aren't you the guy who still thinks Hillary isn't running? I'm confused as to who you think the Democratic nominee will be.

I seriously don't know
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,943


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2015, 02:14:56 PM »

People still pay attention to Nate Silver? He and his pathetic joke of a website have been thoroughly discredited by this point.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,764
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2015, 02:19:47 PM »

He's trolling. Of course he can say when she gets the nomination that he gave her a 77 percent chance. His model gave UK a 42% chance of winning the NCAA's, and that's approached as a foregone conclusion. He's gEttinger page views out of a lower than expected number.

Also, Jim Webb is listed as a first tier candidate...
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2015, 03:27:47 PM »

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2015, 03:29:43 PM »


O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.

Huh? Klobuchar and Gillibrand have already endorsed Hillary.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2015, 03:33:23 PM »


O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.

Huh? Klobuchar and Gillibrand have already endorsed Hillary.

And that puts them in a very good position to get her endorsement and network if Clinton drops out.

Warren definitely isn't running against Clinton, and she likely isn't running even if Clinton bows out.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2015, 03:36:10 PM »

Hillary not running is a not plausible thing. Might as well include the Sun Exploding as a percentage odd on this if that's a factor.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2015, 03:36:53 PM »


O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.

Huh? Klobuchar and Gillibrand have already endorsed Hillary.

And that puts them in a very good position to get her endorsement and network if Clinton drops out.

Warren definitely isn't running against Clinton, and she likely isn't running even if Clinton bows out.

Good point. But what makes you think Warren isn't interested even if Hillary drops out? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's possible she just doesn't want to enter as a massive underdog against Hillary.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2015, 03:38:59 PM »

If only Joe Biden had a 4% chance of being the Democratic nominee...
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2015, 03:39:53 PM »

Hillary not running is a not plausible thing. Might as well include the Sun Exploding as a percentage odd on this if that's a factor.

I'm assuming "drops out" means she has to suspend her campaign due to health issues or she dies or it's discovered she kept severed heads of children in her basement or something. She's definitely running, of course.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,988


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2015, 03:42:51 PM »

Her numbers in primary polls have been dropping like a rock with no opposition. She's at 51% in NY, 42% in MT, 43% in MA, 53% in CT. She was in the 60-70s all throughout 2013-14 but her support has eroded.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2015, 04:19:44 PM »


O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.

Huh? Klobuchar and Gillibrand have already endorsed Hillary.

And that puts them in a very good position to get her endorsement and network if Clinton drops out.

Warren definitely isn't running against Clinton, and she likely isn't running even if Clinton bows out.

Good point. But what makes you think Warren isn't interested even if Hillary drops out? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's possible she just doesn't want to enter as a massive underdog against Hillary.

There's just no indication she is. Everything I've seen on Warren indicates to me that she has the mind of a Washington regulator, not a politician. She was going to get a position in the Obama administration, but it was held up by politics, and that's the only reason the Dems were able to coax her into running for the Senate. Even there, she ran a mostly one-issue campaign, which you can sort of get away with on that level. But not for President.

She doesn't strike me as having the personality to want to run a year-long bare-knuckle brawl where her opinions on foreign policy and domestic issues will be scrutinized constantly. She has an economist's mind, and I think she's far more likely to stay in the Senate and aim for the head of the Banking commission.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,440
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2015, 04:58:47 PM »

Are these the odds Hillary loses, or the odds she's not the nominee.

There are some scenarios under which she might not run, or might drop out.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,857
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2015, 04:59:13 PM »

Warren has made absolutely no moves to indicate that she is interested in running.
And Silver continues to squander whatever good will has amassed since 2008 with his work.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,718
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2015, 05:03:24 PM »

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2015, 05:11:30 PM »

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.

So you think Gillibrand has a better chance of winning the nomination than Cruz?

So many of you are going to have egg on your face in a year. It's going to be amazing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.