153
Nate Plastic
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
153 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13446 readers
819 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
tbh he was probably not far off other statistical analysis in the past but I recall that on the 2020 election his website was extremely wrong
I remember on the morning of the 2016 election, his dip shit voting science site said Clinton had a 93% chance of winning.
Ok so this is weird revisionism, because I remember 538 was the least bullish on Clinton the entire time. The pre election podcast had her odds at 70% or something, which was way better than NYT, etc.
Not to say Nate was "right" about 2016, but compared to other outlets, his actually was closer to the statistical average.
The 93% might have been one of the forecast models, but the day of the election it was only 71.
He still sucks, but he was actually better than other pundits in 2016. They actually got tons of shit from libs because they couldn't comprehend that Trump had 1/3 odds
this is also my recollection. i was checking that shit weekly. i didn't want hillary to win, but her losing to such an obviously awful candidate seemed so unbelievable that the odds they were giving were incomprehensible to me.
and even if it said 99% that doesn't necessarily mean the model was wrong. Sometimes you roll a 1 but the odds of rolling not-1 are still 95% or 83⅓% or whatever
fuck nate but also most of us, including me, don't have math expertise
And I believed it because the Adults In The Room knew What They Were Doing.
8 years later I'm a rabid communist who counts down the hours until the West collapses
We've been waiting for nearly a century now