The New York Times went to press for Tuesday’s print edition with the banner headline “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.” But that accurate summation of what President Trump said about the mass murders in El Paso and Dayton did not please the left on Twitter, which demanded “context” about Trump actually being a racist demagogue. And the Times, which relies on the left for its readership, swiftly obeyed, showing repentance by admitting “The headline was bad” and changing it for the second morning edition to a more Trump-skeptical headline “Assailing Hate, But Not Guns.”
Nate Silver, editor-and-chief of fivethirtyeight.com, a polling analysis and prediction website, had a rough Election Night, as his final odds favoring a Hillary Clinton victory were wrecked by reality. Yet, Silver was relatively less wrong about the presidential election results than most other outlets (including his former colleagues at the New York Times and mocking liberal Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post), with numbers consistently south of the 95-plus percentage chances for a Hillary victory that other outlets were spouting. Silver also constantly hedged his more modest pro-Hillary statistical predictions with reminders that her victory was far from guaranteed. Indeed, Silver’s prediction, in the final hours before the election, that Trump had a 29% of winning was mocked by liberals as being far too generous to Trump. (How did that turn out, anyway?)
Sometimes your best friends can inadvertently become your worst enemies. Such was the case of Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media according to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight. Most observant people knew that the MSM was all in for Hillary this past election to the extent of acting like cheerleaders for her. So instead of cautioning Hillary when Donald Trump made exactly the right moves to win the necessary electoral votes for victory, they instead mocked him for his ignorance of political campaigning. As a result this gave the Hillary campaign a false sense of security when they should have campaigned in the previous "blue wall" states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Nate Silver has been the establishment press's designated polling hero since 2008, when he correctly predicted the outcome of that year's presidential contest in 49 of 50 states. He also had a great year in 2012, predicting all 50 states' presidential preference results.
This year's election? Not so much. Donald Trump won, and Silver is not handling it well. In fact, he's violated one of the cardinal rules of far-left media members, which is to never directly betray your fever-swamp biases and the breathtaking ignorance which can be inferred from them until you either retire or migrate to public broadcasting.
According to our final polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton had a greater than 99% chance of winning the Michigan primary. ---FiveThirtyEight, 3:43 PM EST, March 8, 2016.
Oops! Or rather, a massive OOPS!!! The FiveThirtyEight blog is considered to be the gold (or rather silver since its founder is Nate Silver) standard in election predictions. So when it is so wildly off the mark as happened last night as Bernie Sanders pulled off an astounding primary victory upset in Michigan over Hillary Clinton, it is definitely quite notable. So how to excuse this error? Actually, credit must go to 538 analyst Harry Enten who did not offer any excuses which would only be laughed at. Instead he publicly ate humble pie:
Yesterday morning, before the Republican Party's Nevada caucuses began, Nate Silver at the inexplicably hallowed FiveThirtyEight blog made a really naive and tone-deaf assumption. He reckoned that the caucuses would be a low turnout event, noting that in 2012, "only 1.9 percent of the voting-eligible population — about 33,000 people — participated in the Republican caucuses in Nevada," and spent hundreds of words speculating how that would affect each candidate's prospects.
Oops. This year's turnout in the Silver State more than doubled 2012:
Judging from reports carried by the three mainstream networks' news programs and most of the low-rated cable news channels, it seems that the Fox News Channel and conservative Republicans are totally consumed by the concept of impeaching Democratic President Barack Obama.
However, a Lexis-Nexis search of transcripts from the July programs on FNC and MSNBC indicated that for every mention of the words “impeachment” or “impeach” on the “Fair and Balanced” channel, the “Lean Forward” network used those words five times.
Former Daily Kos blogger Nate Silver turned heads with his Obama-friendly election predictions in the New York Times, but CNN's Soledad O'Brien thinks his conclusions show no bias. Of course, the liberal CNN anchor just might have a blind spot for poll numbers favoring Obama.
"Nate Silver is very careful about focusing on the numbers. And he doesn't have a liberal bias in his calculations, which I think is why a lot of people follow what he has to say," O'Brien declared on Tuesday's Starting Point.
As Election Day draws closer, the New York Times's young star poll analyst Nate Silver (pictured) becomes more and more confident of an Obama win. As of Monday morning, his blog fixed Obama as having a 86.3% chance of winning re-election.
Monday morning Silver posted this on Twitter: "Obama unlikely to win by anything like his post-DNC margins. But Romney has no momentum, Obama's state polling is robust, and time is up."
New York Times star poll analyst Nate Silver continues giving hope to Democrats, and he's getting more confident in an Obama victory as the election draws closer, pegging Obama's odds of victory at around 75%. After a heated debate on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the normally mild-mannered Silver offered via Twitter on Thursday to bet host Joe Scarborough $2,000 that Obama would win, which drew some criticism from the paper's outspoken new Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan. Meanwhile, columnist Paul krugman termed conservative criticism of Silver's methodology "scary."
Silver, a former poster at the left-wing Daily Kos, who usually mans the Five-Thirty-Eight blog at nytimes.com, again made the paper on Thursday with "When State Polls Differ From National Polls," which asserted that Barack Obama will probably win both the Electoral College and popular vote:
The controversial New York Times pollster Nate Silver, who has been roundly criticized for his overly-optimistic Barack Obama polling, told Charlie Rose, on his PBS show on Tuesday: "I don't intend to vote this year."
Silver, responding to a Rose question that he had a political bias in favor of the President, added: "I'd say I am somewhere in-between being a libertarian and a liberal. So if I were to vote it would be kind of a Gary Johnson versus Mitt Romney decision, I suppose."
Before Silver made that claim he attacked MSNBC's Joe Scarborough's recent criticism of his numbers, as he huffed: "He's not using math...He's not using history...He's not using civics." (video after the jump)