NATE SILVER: 'There really was a liberal media bubble'

"Much of The New York Times's coverage, for instance, implied that Clinton's odds were close to 100 percent."

NATE SILVER: 'There really was a liberal media bubble'

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-silver-really-elite-media-155213779.html

FiveThirtyEight Editor-in-Chief Nate Silver on Friday published an analysis of the "liberal media bubble" that led to people underestimating President Donald Trump's chances of winning the 2016 election.

The post, headlined "There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble," concluded that "groupthink produced a failure of the 'wisdom of crowds' and an underestimate of Trump's chances."

Oct. 17 — more than three weeks before Election Day — they portrayed the race as being effectively over, the only question being whether Clinton should seek a landslide or instead assist down-ballot Democrats.""

"Much of The New York Times's coverage, for instance, implied that Clinton's odds were close to 100 percent," Silver wrote. "In an article on Oct. 17 — more than three weeks before Election Day — they portrayed the race as being effectively over, the only question being whether Clinton should seek a landslide or instead assist down-ballot Democrats."

Silver has made a name for himself by predicting elections using data analysis. He had predicted that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, would win, but he had put Trump's chances higher than other outlets did.

Silver discussed the "unthinkability bias" that seemed to have been present in the predictions for the 2016 election.

tends to reinforce itself until and unless there's very compelling evidence for the contrary position. Social media, especially Twitter, can amplify the groupthink further. It can be an echo chamber."" data-reactid="20">"Political experts aren't a very diverse group and tend to place a lot of faith in the opinions of other experts and other members of the political establishment," Silver wrote. "Once a consensus view is established, it tends to reinforce itself until and unless there's very compelling evidence for the contrary position. Social media, especially Twitter, can amplify the groupthink further. It can be an echo chamber."
 
Ya, and Nate was part of it.

Love all these Liberals who read us yesterdays newspaper today, to restore their shredded credibility.

What a joke.

Should I have worn an raincoat yesterday, Nate? Please tell me.
 
ha,ha, why don't they just admit they are partisan democrats and never were nor ever will be objective. You know fox gave Romney high hopes. Of course they were wrong. They never claimed to be what the lying MSM claims to be. FOX is republican and everybody knows it and they don't hide it. Who even cares anymore what the propaganda artists say or write? NYT and CNN are leftwing media outlets in cahoots and used by and for the socialist party. They always think they are smarter than the average person and are shocked the average person is not being swayed by their constant bullshit.
 
Ya, and Nate was part of it.

Love all these Liberals who read us yesterdays newspaper today, to restore their shredded credibility.

What a joke.

Should I have worn an raincoat yesterday, Nate? Please tell me.

In fairness to Nate, he kept saying prior to election night that "Trump is one polling error away from winning the election."

And supposedly, Trump didn't actually expect to win.
 
Not true. Trump always reiterated he would win.

The pollsters knew they were lying the entire time. The methodology always oversampled minorities women and democrats. Always undersampled republicans white males etc.
 
Most people on this site are traders or would be traders and are familiar with odds. 15% odds mean that out of 100 times something will occur 15 times. It has nothing to do with the sequence of how such event will manifest. It could happen on the first try, and it did.

I was in the camp that thought Clinton had better odds, and it was not too far fetched. If I am not mistaken, Trump won Rust Belt with less than 100K votes. It could have easily gone the other way as well if Clinton did not take certain things for granted and made more appearances there.

I lost lots of wagers on the election. So far i have a very mixed feeling about the Trump, some things sound great, some idiotic. They better open cross boarder insurance market or the mess will get even bigger with ACA replacement.
 
I watched over 500 hours of Trump speeches/interviews before the election. 96% of the time he was adamant he would win. He had his doubts tho regarding the polls and fake news.

What do you expect him to say publicly? Even the libertarian candidate never said he was going to lose.

Does any NFL team about to play the Patriots say, "we're not going to win this one" on press day?

The fact that he felt it privately the night before just highlights how shocking of a victory it was for him and the country.
 
Back
Top