In response to:

# Nate Silver's Numbers Racket

Has anyone said that Silver was simply lucky? Certainly not the writer of the column. Do you get a discount when you purchase straw men in bulk?
Bruce2397 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 7:04 AM
Whiny Mag---In 2008, Silver's model correctly predicted the winners of all 35 Senate races, and got Obama vs McCain right in 49 out of 50 states--missing only Indiana, which he called for McCain but went for Obama.

Simply lucky? Now you're being as emotional and pouty as the TH columnists. Why the eagerness to be wrong?
DevlinCarnate Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 2:11 AM
Since reading comprehension isn't your strong point; let's look at the last paragraph:

" isn't it possible that the passionate defense Silver arouses from some people on the left has just a bit more to do with the comfort he dispenses than with the sophistication of his analysis"

So Goldberg feels that since he can't understand math behind NS's predictions, no one else can either. If he can't understand the model, what does he attribute the high correlation between NS's predictions and actual events? If it's not "sophistication of analysis", i.e. math, what is it? Luck. Call it "comfort" if you want, but he's saying it's luck.

People defend NS because he's right most of the time. You not liking what he's right about means "zero".

## Nate Silver's Numbers Racket

In the last week or so, an intense kerfuffle broke out over the poll-prognosticator Nate Silver and his blog at the New York Times, FiveThirtyEight. Silver, a statistician, has been predicting a decisive Obama victory for a very long time, based on his very complicated statistical model, which very, very few of his fans or detractors understand.

On any given day, Silver might have announced that -- given the new polling data -- "the model" was now finding that the president had an 86.3 percent chance of winning. Not 86.4 percent, you fools. Not 86.1 percent, you Philistines. But 86.3 percent,...