Nate Silver: "**** you, we did a good job"

[blacknwhiterose]

Trafalgar wasn't a valid pollster.

People need to stop saying that all the Republican hack pollsters were good just because they were closer to the actual result.

I could make a map where I just give Trump every single state by 5 points, and then point to FL and say "look I had Trump winning FL by 5 and he won it by 3!  I beat all the fake news pollsters!"  or "look I had Trump winning WI by 5, and he only lost it by 1, that's way better than the fake news pollsters who had Biden +9!"

The fact of the matter is that the mainstream pollsters were wrong, but they were mostly wrong directionally.  Trump got way better turnout than expected so you basically shift every poll 4-5 points in Trump's favor and you're close to the real results.  That's why Nate's snake map ended up being just about right, with GA the only outlier.

On the other hand, Trafalgar was just predicting a Trump win in every swing state based on nothing other than quantified "gut instinct" about "shy Trump voters."  So you had totally wrong numbers like Trump +2 in MI, +2 in PA, +1 in NV, +5 in GA, +3 in AZ, and so on.  Those are wrong numbers, and there's not any rhyme or reason to their wrong-ness.  They're just random Trump-friendly numbers that Trafalgar got not through any scientific methodology, but rather by starting with the final result they wanted, doing a poll, and then fabricating priors to massage the results until they got to their desired outcome.

Just for clarity: Trafalgar had Trump winning Florida by +2.1% when he actually won by 3.4

[S019ian Liberal]

Trump had neither a 30% chance in 2016 nor a 10% chance this year, objective speaking. That's why his model was wrong. Pure and simple.

EVEN IF it was correct on those toplines, the way he arrived at the result he did is hideous malpractice to say the least. If that's not evident to you, I'm not sure what about this fact and reality could make it clearer.

Absolutely he did. Many said he was "wrong" when he said Trump would lose in 2016, despite giving him a 30% chance to win. By that logic, since Biden won, he was absolutely correct to give him a 90% chance to win.

The snake states that were wrong had >30% chance of going the other way but it doesn't matter. If you judge based on the result, as many did last time, then he called the election exactly correct!

There's a 100% chance you understand 0% about probabilities.

I use both probability and stats daily. I've said many times Silver's model cannot be either right or wrong. But many decide to judge the model as either right or wrong anyway. If it got 2016 wrong (it didn't), then it got 2020 right (it didn't). Happy?

No, it got both wrong.

Many said he was "wrong" when he said Trump would lose in 2016, despite giving him a 30% chance to win.

Who said this? I certainly haven't.

The snake states that were wrong had >30% chance of going the other way but it doesn't matter.

It's not hard to call >90% of states correctly. All you need to do is rip off an "expert" map or even steal the average of polling. That's not genius or foresh**t, that's amateur level or worse (which in fairness we've come to expect from Silver by now)

If you judge based on the result, as many did last time, then he called the election exactly correct!

Wtf is this "judgment" you're passing right now, bro

[S019ian Liberal]

Yup, the snake got 48/50 states “right” in the sense that who it favored to win, won.

It's not hard to call >90% of states correctly. All you need to do is rip off an "expert" map or even steal the average of polling. That's not genius or foresh**t, that's amateur level or worse (which in fairness we've come to expect from Silver by now)

[S019ian Liberal]

I've seen you post this before, but I'm not seeing where this correct prediction is. Your official prediction (the one below your avatar when you post) had Biden winning 350-188. You've already missed Florida and there's a good chance you miss North Carolina as well (not even getting into percentages). If you made something more recent, I don't see it, and I scrolled back before that prediction just in case you posted it in a thread somewhere and forgot to update the official one.

When did I ever say I called all 50 states correctly lol

Getting an election right is about far more than simply identifying the correct winners. Margins, trends, demographic breakdowns, oddball distinctions, etc. all mark a jewel and gem as pearl-in-the-rough prediction. Which is why if you actually delve into the Sabato analysis, or Trafalgar/Selzer/Emerson/Quin crosstabs for instance, you will see they only chanced upon their "accurate" numbers by pure and sheer force of luck. Furthermore, down-ballot races matter a lot too, which I've mentioned before as well. Now it's up to all our jobs in diagnosing the eventual consequences of this election also!

In any case, even on the topline I hit the mark way more closely than 538 did.

[Asta]

I was an applied math/stats major in college so it may come across biased, but people need to stop chastising Nate Silver. Polling is imperfect due to psychological elements.

There is nearly no one who got every election correct from 2000 to 2020, particularly close to the margins. I only got Georgia wrong this year yet I don't claim to be a better election pundit than him.

Unlike 99% of people who, with their rose-colored glasses, are myopic and self-absorbed in their beliefs that their side will win, at least he is able to provide probabilities buttressed by concrete empirical reasoning.

Not everyone can claim to prognosticate increasing probability of EC/PV split in 2016 or that Obama would have had the edge in 2012 if PV was close like he can.

Deductive reasoning is just as important as correct answers themselves. I would not bet my mortgage on Nate Silver or anyone else for forecasting elections but I sure would rather read his reasoning than "muh 2016".

[Buzz]

It is not hard to predict the final election map.  I'm some hack that just checks polls occasionally and got 49/50 with the only miss being less than 10k votes.  Nate Silver doesn't deserve to be praised as some prophet. His profession is easy.

[Torie]

If the polls are systemically flawed, Nate Silver is systemically flawed.

[S019ian Liberal]

I defended Nate Silver against the wolf packs collective from 2016 campaign period onward because most of the attacks coming from left-leaning bubble then were straight-up and flat-out WRONG. I correctly predicted Trump's overperformance relative to polling that year, despite blaring alarms and warning signals for Hillary's campaign

But by now I've long since had enough of him. And credit to him for having methodology (in addition to basic source code) out in the open but I can no longer in good conscience treat it as a accurate barometer of the national mood anymore.

I was an applied math/stats major in college so it may come across biased, but people need to stop chastising Nate Silver. Polling is imperfect due to psychological elements.

Right. And that does excuse a fundamentally disoriented, piss-poorly calibrated model.

There is nearly no one who got every election correct from 2000 to 2020, particularly close to the margins. I only got Georgia wrong this year yet I don't claim to be a better election pundit than him.

Good for you. And you might very well be a better pundit than him indeed. Not that that's a terribly high bar to attain, of course.

Unlike 99% of people who, with their rose-colored glasses, are myopic and self-absorbed in their beliefs that their side will win

That certainly does not describe 99% of Atlas. 20% sure, maybe (about evenly split between blue checkmarks and red avatars alike)

at least he is able to provide probabilities buttressed by concrete empirical reasoning.

Very flawed empirical reasoning at that, mind you.

Not everyone can claim to prognosticate increasing probability of EC/PV split in 2016 or that Obama would have had the edge in 2012 if PV was close like he can.

State vs national polling suggested, if not indicated this. How do you think Silver separated his noise from the signal anyway? People just fail to pat attention individually.

Deductive reasoning is just as important as correct answers themselves. I would not bet my mortgage on Nate Silver or anyone else for forecasting elections but I sure would rather read his reasoning than "muh 2016".

who exactly has been saying that? cuz i know that i currently haven't, that's for sure!

[S019ian Liberal]

If the polls are systemically flawed, Nate Silver is systemically flawed.

He got 2018 (and dozens of other elections which I neglect to mention) wrong, in spite of -- not because -- the polls were right.

Take World Cup 2014 and UK 2017 to wit, for instance:

[Malarkey Decider]

If the polls are systemically flawed, Nate Silver is systemically flawed.

He got 2018 (and dozens of other elections which I neglect to mention) wrong, in spite of -- not because -- the polls were right.

Take World Cup 2014 and UK 2017 to wit, for instance:

How did he get 2018 wrong?

[StateBoiler]

I'll never ever understand the hate that Nate Silver gets on this forum.

Models SHOULD be primarily focused on handling polling data. All that other sh*t is pretty much BS.

But in handling polling data you have to rely on the actual data that you get. Silvers model usually fares better than other models who project more confidence than Silvers model.

Except my problem is that he accepts garbage data as good and refuses to change his pollster grades. Why did Marist still keep an A rating after missing 4 major races in 2018 by their MOE?

Or this one.

Tom Bevan

@TomBevanRCP

Nov 4

NYT/Siena, rated an A+ pollster by 538, overestimated Biden's support by:

6+ in FL
4+ in NC
Probably 6ish in MI when the count is in
10 ish in WI
10+ in IA
9+ in OH

Great job.

[StateBoiler]

(Sigh)

Can we stop with the idea that the polls were a dumpster fire? Its looking like 538 predicted 48 out of 50 states. That's not bad.

Polling is not pass/fail. If you say Candidate A will win a state by 1 point and instead Candidate B won the state by 1 point, that's not a miss due to margin of error. If you say Candidate A will win a state by 10 and instead wins it by 2, that's a miss.

[DaleCooper]

There is a lot of truth to the point that predicting all but two or three states right is not impressive. I'm not sure if I ever shared it on the site somewhere, but my last prediction only overestimated Biden by one state. I had him winning NC and FL but losing GA, and I'm basically just a hobbyist.

[Asta]

Right. And that does excuse a fundamentally disoriented, piss-poorly calibrated model.

So what component, if any, of his model, do you disagree with? Don't just say something like "everything". I'm not claiming his models are perfect or imperfect. If you're going to provide a contrarian view, then please specify your breakdown backed by the data.

Good for you. And you might very well be a better pundit than him indeed. Not that that's a terribly high bar to attain, of course.

I sure am not. My basis was that polls did not seem to have adjusted errors in the Midwest regions in 2018. My read on Florida early voting was that Florida is likely gone for Biden. I don't deserve any praise for it.

Very flawed empirical reasoning at that, mind you.

So back to the above, what about it is flawed? Response bias? Shy Trump voters? If that's the case, then that would be a problem with the pollsters, not Silver's models. His job is to aggregate and apply them. If you're not going to back up your models using long-term evidence, then your punditry is as good as bunk science. There is no long-term bias toward one party over another. If polls are going to systematically oversample Democrats, then it wouldn't be Silver's duty to artificially add 10 points to Republicans based on just recent happenings.

I am not going to praise a pundit who gets correct answers at the expense of abandoning scientific reasons; not that it would have a durable effect in the long term anyway.

I would diss Silver if he adds 10 artificial points to Republicans then end up overestimating Republicans in the next election, even if it ends up more accurate than 2020.

Of course, to someone like you who is ready to abandon the logic train, you would likely say I might as well use such methods. Sorry to you mate, but I value principles over short-term predicting abilities.

State vs national polling suggested, if not indicated this. How do you think Silver separated his noise from the signal anyway? People just fail to pat attention individually.

Yea in hindsight, it's easy to claim to have observed this. At the time, nearly no one was talking about this.

who exactly has been saying that? cuz i know that i currently haven't, that's for sure!

Numerous doomers, including myself expected Trump to outperform his expectation, not necessarily based on 2016.

[S019ian Liberal]

If the polls are systemically flawed, Nate Silver is systemically flawed.

He got 2018 (and dozens of other elections which I neglect to mention) wrong, in spite of -- not because -- the polls were right.

Take World Cup 2014 and UK 2017 to wit, for instance:

How did he get 2018 wrong?

He called IN, MO, FL for Dems when the rest of us got it right, etc. Need I go on to Gov and House races where his predictions were even less accurate?

[S019ian Liberal]

Mate, do you not understand my friend that toplines aren't everything. Errors cancelling each other out as they did nationally in 2016 and otherwise, do not warrant a pat on the back.

They got 20 seats wrong federally the last time around, but nailed both major parties' seat counts. I on the other hand, had 5 seats wrong but all in the same direction. Do you seriously not witness the nerve they had in criticizing my forecast for being less accurate than they were?

In fact, even if I had 20 seats wrong, all in the same direction, I would still consider myself a better model-builder than he was. Because that suggests it was the overall polling average that went into my math that was flawed, not my actual methods. With the correct data I would have gotten it near perfectly resembling the final result. Whereas his, where he made mistakes all over the place with crosstabs, point to larger, longer-term, and deeper more structural issues with the way he is handling what goes on the outside.

Real intelligence will show itself over the long run, mark my words.

Of course, to someone like you who is ready to abandon the logic train, you would likely say I might as well use such methods. Sorry to you mate, but I value principles over short-term predicting abilities.

Lol. Now who exactly is abandoning logic here, failing to understand illiteracy, it's you who's arguing in favor of untested and plain wrong methods, I have stuck to my guns even when it was inconvenient to do so, and endured years of slack or sh**t online for it. Sorry to you mate, but I value truth over facts.

Numerous doomers, including myself expected Trump to outperform his expectation, not necessarily based on 2016.

okay, and your point is? i mean like if anything that detracts from your case, but go on.

I don't deserve any praise for it.

You absolutely do lol, when most of the rest of people on here were saying that Biden still had an unimpacted or obstructed shot there despite this information coming out. I'd say something like 90% in fact!

There is no long-term bias toward one party over another. If polls are going to systematically oversample Democrats, then it wouldn't be Silver's duty to artificially add 10 points to Republicans based on just recent happenings.

Have you actually even read any of my posts? When have I ever said that? I have defended the lack of long-term bias in polls even when literally every other pollster without exception have claimed they were systematically favoring one party over another. And of course, I have been vindicated in doing so for the American races, UK 2017 as well as other years, etc.

I would diss Silver if he adds 10 artificial points to Republicans then end up overestimating Republicans in the next election, even if it ends up more accurate than 2020.

And agreed on this one here, I would too!

[emailking]

Trump had neither a 30% chance in 2016 nor a 10% chance this year, objective speaking. That's why his model was wrong. Pure and simple.

EVEN IF it was correct on those toplines, the way he arrived at the result he did is hideous malpractice to say the least. If that's not evident to you, I'm not sure what about this fact and reality could make it clearer.

Absolutely he did. Many said he was "wrong" when he said Trump would lose in 2016, despite giving him a 30% chance to win. By that logic, since Biden won, he was absolutely correct to give him a 90% chance to win.

The snake states that were wrong had >30% chance of going the other way but it doesn't matter. If you judge based on the result, as many did last time, then he called the election exactly correct!

There's a 100% chance you understand 0% about probabilities.

I use both probability and stats daily. I've said many times Silver's model cannot be either right or wrong. But many decide to judge the model as either right or wrong anyway. If it got 2016 wrong (it didn't), then it got 2020 right (it didn't). Happy?

No, it got both wrong.

Many said he was "wrong" when he said Trump would lose in 2016, despite giving him a 30% chance to win.

Who said this? I certainly haven't.

The snake states that were wrong had >30% chance of going the other way but it doesn't matter.

It's not hard to call >90% of states correctly. All you need to do is rip off an "expert" map or even steal the average of polling. That's not genius or foresh**t, that's amateur level or worse (which in fairness we've come to expect from Silver by now)

If you judge based on the result, as many did last time, then he called the election exactly correct!

Wtf is this "judgment" you're passing right now, bro

I don't remember names, sorry.

[Dr. Arch]

To be fair, it's hard to build an accurate model off polling if the polling is inaccurate. Again, Silver had the best model, giving Trump much better odds to perform as well as he did than the Morris' model. On a separate note, it always felt like Morris let his partisanship affect his modeling decisions. He excluded what turned out to be valid pollsters like Trafalgar and Emerson on the grounds of having unreliable data. I feel like this had to do with them giving good results for Trump. This was defensible, but I feel like he would not have excluded junky polls if they were giving good results for Democrats.

Trafalgar wasn't a valid pollster.

People need to stop saying that all the Republican hack pollsters were good just because they were closer to the actual result.

I could make a map where I just give Trump every single state by 5 points, and then point to FL and say "look I had Trump winning FL by 5 and he won it by 3!  I beat all the fake news pollsters!"  or "look I had Trump winning WI by 5, and he only lost it by 1, that's way better than the fake news pollsters who had Biden +9!"

The fact of the matter is that the mainstream pollsters were wrong, but they were mostly wrong directionally.  Trump got way better turnout than expected so you basically shift every poll 4-5 points in Trump's favor and you're close to the real results.  That's why Nate's snake map ended up being just about right, with GA the only outlier.

On the other hand, Trafalgar was just predicting a Trump win in every swing state based on nothing other than quantified "gut instinct" about "shy Trump voters."  So you had totally wrong numbers like Trump +2 in MI, +2 in PA, +1 in NV, +5 in GA, +3 in AZ, and so on.  Those are wrong numbers, and there's not any rhyme or reason to their wrong-ness.  They're just random Trump-friendly numbers that Trafalgar got not through any scientific methodology, but rather by starting with the final result they wanted, doing a poll, and then fabricating priors to massage the results until they got to their desired outcome.

Why does this matter?  Because if all polls were like Trafalgar, polling would be worse than useless.  It means all Trafalgar basically is is one guy's gut instinct translated into numbers.  It's no more useful than an SN2903 map.

Trafalgar does count; they did the best job, as does Rasmussen.  It just bugs people that Robert Cahaly, an eccentric conservative with a bow tie and unflattering mustache and hairstyle, is building a track record of accuracy in Presidential elections. 

As the media was completely in the tank for Biden this year, why should one be surprised to think that the pollsters were complicit as activists posing as observers?

When are you going to stop embarrassing yourself? In what world does this map qualify as "best"?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1323781792286081026

[StateBoiler]

another poll that was wrong:

Since 1952, Vigo County became a presidential bellwether, backing every winning presidential candidate. That streak ended. Trump carried Vigo County by 14.75%, almost matching his 2016 plurality of 14.97%. A late Emerson College poll last week had the race tied at 48%. Doh!

[IceAgeComing]

He got 2018 (and dozens of other elections which I neglect to mention) wrong, in spite of -- not because -- the polls were right.

Take World Cup 2014 and UK 2017 to wit, for instance:

The 2014 FIFA World Cup is my favourite election, personally

[S019ian Liberal]

He got 2018 (and dozens of other elections which I neglect to mention) wrong, in spite of -- not because -- the polls were right.

Take World Cup 2014 and UK 2017 to wit, for instance:

The 2014 FIFA World Cup is my favourite election, personally

Mine too, I'm so glad Brazil defeated Germany 7-1 in the semis and went on to lift the trophy!

[S019ian Liberal]

Right. And that does excuse a fundamentally disoriented, piss-poorly calibrated model.

So what component, if any, of his model, do you disagree with? Don't just say something like "everything". I'm not claiming his models are perfect or imperfect. If you're going to provide a contrarian view, then please specify your breakdown backed by the data.

Good for you. And you might very well be a better pundit than him indeed. Not that that's a terribly high bar to attain, of course.

I sure am not. My basis was that polls did not seem to have adjusted errors in the Midwest regions in 2018. My read on Florida early voting was that Florida is likely gone for Biden. I don't deserve any praise for it.

Very flawed empirical reasoning at that, mind you.

So back to the above, what about it is flawed? Response bias? Shy Trump voters? If that's the case, then that would be a problem with the pollsters, not Silver's models. His job is to aggregate and apply them. If you're not going to back up your models using long-term evidence, then your punditry is as good as bunk science. There is no long-term bias toward one party over another. If polls are going to systematically oversample Democrats, then it wouldn't be Silver's duty to artificially add 10 points to Republicans based on just recent happenings.

I am not going to praise a pundit who gets correct answers at the expense of abandoning scientific reasons; not that it would have a durable effect in the long term anyway.

I would diss Silver if he adds 10 artificial points to Republicans then end up overestimating Republicans in the next election, even if it ends up more accurate than 2020.

Of course, to someone like you who is ready to abandon the logic train, you would likely say I might as well use such methods. Sorry to you mate, but I value principles over short-term predicting abilities.

State vs national polling suggested, if not indicated this. How do you think Silver separated his noise from the signal anyway? People just fail to pat attention individually.

Yea in hindsight, it's easy to claim to have observed this. At the time, nearly no one was talking about this.

who exactly has been saying that? cuz i know that i currently haven't, that's for sure!

Numerous doomers, including myself expected Trump to outperform his expectation, not necessarily based on 2016.

absolutely and complete a total lie. i have been the only one defending the polls when others were all in favor if skewing them by artificially inflating the number of disadvantaged party's margin and then repeatedly getting burned for it each time. including trump and took so much flak for it.

for you to talk about having "principles" or taking a ride of the "logic train" is frankly insulting and very rich coming from a person like analyzing this. really? this is wrong and you should know better than to peddle such nonsense. very offended by your untrue and blatantly false attacks, wherein you keep getting things wrong but blame it on others, and then project your long-term track record of failure onto "luck" where it can't even explain those same errors!

[Asta]

Right. And that does excuse a fundamentally disoriented, piss-poorly calibrated model.

So what component, if any, of his model, do you disagree with? Don't just say something like "everything". I'm not claiming his models are perfect or imperfect. If you're going to provide a contrarian view, then please specify your breakdown backed by the data.

Good for you. And you might very well be a better pundit than him indeed. Not that that's a terribly high bar to attain, of course.

I sure am not. My basis was that polls did not seem to have adjusted errors in the Midwest regions in 2018. My read on Florida early voting was that Florida is likely gone for Biden. I don't deserve any praise for it.

Very flawed empirical reasoning at that, mind you.

So back to the above, what about it is flawed? Response bias? Shy Trump voters? If that's the case, then that would be a problem with the pollsters, not Silver's models. His job is to aggregate and apply them. If you're not going to back up your models using long-term evidence, then your punditry is as good as bunk science. There is no long-term bias toward one party over another. If polls are going to systematically oversample Democrats, then it wouldn't be Silver's duty to artificially add 10 points to Republicans based on just recent happenings.

I am not going to praise a pundit who gets correct answers at the expense of abandoning scientific reasons; not that it would have a durable effect in the long term anyway.

I would diss Silver if he adds 10 artificial points to Republicans then end up overestimating Republicans in the next election, even if it ends up more accurate than 2020.

Of course, to someone like you who is ready to abandon the logic train, you would likely say I might as well use such methods. Sorry to you mate, but I value principles over short-term predicting abilities.

State vs national polling suggested, if not indicated this. How do you think Silver separated his noise from the signal anyway? People just fail to pat attention individually.

Yea in hindsight, it's easy to claim to have observed this. At the time, nearly no one was talking about this.

who exactly has been saying that? cuz i know that i currently haven't, that's for sure!

Numerous doomers, including myself expected Trump to outperform his expectation, not necessarily based on 2016.

absolutely and complete a total lie. i have been the only one defending the polls when others were all in favor if skewing them by artificially inflating the number of disadvantaged party's margin and then repeatedly getting burned for it each time. including trump and took so much flak for it.

for you to talk about having "principles" or taking a ride of the "logic train" is frankly insulting and very rich coming from a person like analyzing this. really? this is wrong and you should know better than to peddle such nonsense. very offended by your untrue and blatantly false attacks, wherein you keep getting things wrong but blame it on others, and then project your long-term track record of failure onto "luck" where it can't even explain those same errors!

I apologize if that came across insulting. I thought that you're mocking Silver, are you not?

You saying I might as well be a better pundit gave me the impression results are the only things that matter. I did not read all 4 pages. You still haven't explained this. I'm frankly perplexed by your seemingly willingness to attack his methodology.

Btw, keeping all NJ buddies was a self-trolling job that I intentionally did to amuse myself after seeing consecutive NJ voters in one thread asking about if they voted. I take no offense to it so keep your signature at your own discretion.

[S019ian Liberal]

I apologize if that came across insulting. I thought that you're mocking Silver, are you not?

You saying I might as well be a better pundit gave me the impression results are the only things that matter. I did not read all 4 pages. You still haven't explained this. I'm frankly perplexed by your seemingly willingness to attack his methodology.

Btw, keeping all NJ buddies was a self-trolling job that I intentionally did to amuse myself after seeing consecutive NJ voters in one thread asking about if they voted. I take no offense to it so keep your signature at your own discretion.

Likewise, I apologize if I came across in an insulting manner as well. I was merely so combative as I was outraged to hear such bald-faced lies surrounding my methodology and approach which I have worked in good faith to hone for many years now.

I never said you were a better pundit *because* you got good results (though of course, that is absolutely toward your own credit). I was simply making the point that he is such a terrible analysis of the current situation in politics -- and remember, I defended him forcefully from such attacks against 1) leftists who turned him out during the 2016 campaign (for being "insufficiently bullish" on HRC), 2) Trumpists who bizarrely discounted him for muh polling failure post-2016, 3) haters and doubted during the 2020 primaries for his supposedly wacky model, and more. I was particularly a fan of his mea culpa (the "true, hidden/real story") in the face of 2016's upset and still anticipate with bated breaths what work he may produce this time around too. But I also have significantly accumulated criticisms upon delving into his model, taking issue with arguments regarding handily amount of the math behind the scenes which you can be found elsewhere on my blog posts here in this site so.

Still though, I found it really funny, gave me a good laugh and I hope to wish for good luck if I may spread this humorous result to the rest of our community also. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for engaging with the rest of us and onward to victory! Throughout history, I hope you retain this trend and continue to amuse people in such greatly abundant and vivacious quantities.

[S019ian Liberal]

I'm not saying those online criticisms on NS are any more accurate or correct than he was, However many valid and legitimate attacks do exist, he was not right back in 2016 nor now and frankly never, predictably forecasted in doing and saying so while talking trash about others for the fact that he as an arrogant dck a s s h o l e and frankly tried to make up for that by cloaking himself in a shrouded sense of mystery and going after others without having looked inward and truly attempted to study the person in the mirror first.