c***x
发帖数: 284 | 1 前几天看trump还有20% chance的，今天扫了一眼，艾玛，只剩14.5%了，
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
建议川粉们买点彩票对冲下风险，要不捐的钱真是肉包子打狗了。 |
i**********k
发帖数: 5274 | 2 初选时，538那人至少说了十次以上川普不能出线。不断地被打脸。
建议楼主大量买进老婊子赢，比炒股强。 |
c***x
发帖数: 284 | 3 呵呵，你开玩笑吧，买h赢赔率才多少，真能比炒股强？
川粉倒是可以别捐钱了，该买彩票，1赔10，下几周应该一赔20都有。
【在 i**********k 的大作中提到】
: 初选时，538那人至少说了十次以上川普不能出线。不断地被打脸。
: 建议楼主大量买进老婊子赢，比炒股强。
|
c***x
发帖数: 284 | 4 才过两小时，又掉0.2%，这节奏，大选当天能有5%应该就很不错了。 |
t******g
发帖数: 1667 | 5 538？是当年预测Brexit被笑话那个538吗？ |
c***x
发帖数: 284 | 6 当时是50%-50%，你等着吧，要trump在10% odds都能翻盘再来笑不迟。
【在 t******g 的大作中提到】
: 538？是当年预测Brexit被笑话那个538吗？
|
q***0
发帖数: 225 | 7 Brexit 的 平均民调只错了 4%，错得不多
【在 t******g 的大作中提到】
: 538？是当年预测Brexit被笑话那个538吗？
|
t******g
发帖数: 1667 | 8 1楼的数字是odds of winning，不是民调。这比民调还不靠谱。这个538去年预测Trump
只有5%的概率赢得初选，还弄了个Trump's six stages of doom，结果每个stage都被
打脸。预测如此consistently wrong，也不容易。
【在 q***0 的大作中提到】
: Brexit 的 平均民调只错了 4%，错得不多
|
g******t
发帖数: 18158 | 9 这个 FiveThirtyEight 是 New York Times 旗下的打手，和飞机上的鸡西卡老太太是
一路货
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight
The website, which takes its name from the number of electors in the United
States electoral college,[538 1] was founded on March 7, 2008, as a polling
aggregation website with a blog created by analyst Nate Silver. In August
2010, the blog became a licensed feature of The New York Times online. It
was renamed FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus. |
j**********r
发帖数: 3798 | 10 黑8 12年横扫，都才赢了4% popular vote 。还不多呢？
【在 q***0 的大作中提到】
: Brexit 的 平均民调只错了 4%，错得不多
|
|
|
q*c
发帖数: 9453 | 11 你出示一下你对这个网站的支持，破产了能帮他付钱
我马上就去买 1000 刀
【在 c***x 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，你开玩笑吧，买h赢赔率才多少，真能比炒股强？
: 川粉倒是可以别捐钱了，该买彩票，1赔10，下几周应该一赔20都有。
|
g******t
发帖数: 18158 | 12 无情的打脸，噼里啪啦
As early as June 2015, FiveThirtyEight argued that Donald Trump "isn't a
real candidate"[86] and maintained that Trump could not win the nomination
until late in the election season.[87] When Donald Trump became the
presumptive Republican nominee in May 2016, New York Times media columnist
Jim Rutenberg wrote that "predictions can have consequences" and criticized
FiveThirtyEight for underestimating Trump's chances. He argued that by
giving "Mr. Trump a 2 percent chance at the nomination despite strong polls
in his favor...they also arguably sapped the journalistic will to scour his
record as aggressively as those of his supposedly more serious rivals".[88] |
g******t
发帖数: 18158 | 13 打烂老婊砸走狗的碧莲
Criticism of presidential forecasts[edit]
In a series of posts in 2011 and 2012, FiveThirtyEight criticized the
forecasting methods that relied on macro-economic modeling of the electoral
outcomes.[538 80][538 81] According to Silver, models based primarily on the
macro-level performance of the economy (such as unemployment, inflation,
and the performance of the stock market), presidential approval ratings (
when an incumbent is running for re-election), and the ideological
positioning of the (potential) opposing candidates were useful for making
forecasts of the election outcome well in advance of election day, though
not very precise ones.
An article stating such a position published exactly one year before
election day 2012[47] was attacked in an online article in Bloomberg News by
Ron Klain, the former chief-of-staff to Vice President Biden and a
political advisor to Barack Obama.[59] Nate Silver wrote a defense of his
method in response. Silver's response was followed by another one from Klain
others on Silver's article and the debate with Klain.[538 82][61][62]
In late October and early November 2012, a number of conservative political
journalists issued criticisms of Nate Silver's predictions as overly biased
towards Barack Obama's chances of being re-elected president.[63][64][65][66
][67][68] Dean Chambers criticized Nate Silver and issued his own "unskewed"
prediction of the election. This prediction ultimately erred on four swing
states and missed Barack Obama's popular vote percentage by 1.7%, while Nate
Silver correctly predicted all 50 states and missed Barack Obama's popular
vote percentage by 0.3%. Dean Chambers admitted that his assumptions about
voter turnout were incorrect and that the pollsters' assumptions were very
accurate.[69]
During the final weeks prior to the November 6th election, some pundits also
criticized Silver's electoral model for conveying an undue sense of
predictability to the outcome as well as a conviction that Barack Obama was
ahead in the race and had a 75% probability of winning.[70] For example, New
York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote, "I know ... how I should
treat polling data. First, I should treat polls as a fuzzy snapshot of a
moment in time. I should not read them, and think I understand the future.
If there's one thing we know, it’s that even experts with fancy computer
models are terrible at predicting human behavior".[71][72]
In a more direct attack on Silver, in an article entitled "Nate Silver: One-
term celebrity?" Dylan Byers of Politico wrote, "For all the confidence
Silver puts in his predictions, he often gives the impression of hedging.
Which, given all the variables involved in a presidential election, isn't
surprising. For this reason and others—and this may shock the coffee-
drinking NPR types of Seattle, San Francisco and Madison, Wis.—more than a
few political pundits and reporters, including some of his own colleagues,
believe Silver is highly overrated."[64] Byers also quoted this comment by
Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe: "Nate Silver says this is a 73.6
percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign
thinks they have a 73 percent chance – they think they have a 50.1 percent
chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing,"
Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go
either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a toss-up
right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters,
computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're
jokes". |
Q**F
发帖数: 995 | |
A****y
发帖数: 2467 | 15 它都没有脸，你怎么打的了啊？
criticized
polls
his
【在 g******t 的大作中提到】
: 无情的打脸，噼里啪啦
: As early as June 2015, FiveThirtyEight argued that Donald Trump "isn't a
: real candidate"[86] and maintained that Trump could not win the nomination
: until late in the election season.[87] When Donald Trump became the
: presumptive Republican nominee in May 2016, New York Times media columnist
: Jim Rutenberg wrote that "predictions can have consequences" and criticized
: FiveThirtyEight for underestimating Trump's chances. He argued that by
: giving "Mr. Trump a 2 percent chance at the nomination despite strong polls
: in his favor...they also arguably sapped the journalistic will to scour his
: record as aggressively as those of his supposedly more serious rivals".[88]
|
c***x
发帖数: 284 | 16 前几天看trump还有20% chance的，今天扫了一眼，艾玛，只剩14.5%了，
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
建议川粉们买点彩票对冲下风险，要不捐的钱真是肉包子打狗了。 |
i**********k
发帖数: 5274 | 17 初选时，538那人至少说了十次以上川普不能出线。不断地被打脸。
建议楼主大量买进老婊子赢，比炒股强。 |
c***x
发帖数: 284 | 18 呵呵，你开玩笑吧，买h赢赔率才多少，真能比炒股强？
川粉倒是可以别捐钱了，该买彩票，1赔10，下几周应该一赔20都有。
【在 i**********k 的大作中提到】
: 初选时，538那人至少说了十次以上川普不能出线。不断地被打脸。
: 建议楼主大量买进老婊子赢，比炒股强。
|
c***x
发帖数: 284 | 19 才过两小时，又掉0.2%，这节奏，大选当天能有5%应该就很不错了。 |
t******g
发帖数: 1667 | 20 538？是当年预测Brexit被笑话那个538吗？ |
|
|
c***x
发帖数: 284 | 21 当时是50%-50%，你等着吧，要trump在10% odds都能翻盘再来笑不迟。
【在 t******g 的大作中提到】
: 538？是当年预测Brexit被笑话那个538吗？
|
q***0
发帖数: 225 | 22 Brexit 的 平均民调只错了 4%，错得不多
【在 t******g 的大作中提到】
: 538？是当年预测Brexit被笑话那个538吗？
|
t******g
发帖数: 1667 | 23 1楼的数字是odds of winning，不是民调。这比民调还不靠谱。这个538去年预测Trump
只有5%的概率赢得初选，还弄了个Trump's six stages of doom，结果每个stage都被
打脸。预测如此consistently wrong，也不容易。
【在 q***0 的大作中提到】
: Brexit 的 平均民调只错了 4%，错得不多
|
g******t
发帖数: 18158 | 24 这个 FiveThirtyEight 是 New York Times 旗下的打手，和飞机上的鸡西卡老太太是
一路货
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight
The website, which takes its name from the number of electors in the United
States electoral college,[538 1] was founded on March 7, 2008, as a polling
aggregation website with a blog created by analyst Nate Silver. In August
2010, the blog became a licensed feature of The New York Times online. It
was renamed FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus. |
j**********r
发帖数: 3798 | 25 黑8 12年横扫，都才赢了4% popular vote 。还不多呢？
【在 q***0 的大作中提到】
: Brexit 的 平均民调只错了 4%，错得不多
|
q*c
发帖数: 9453 | 26 你出示一下你对这个网站的支持，破产了能帮他付钱
我马上就去买 1000 刀
【在 c***x 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，你开玩笑吧，买h赢赔率才多少，真能比炒股强？
: 川粉倒是可以别捐钱了，该买彩票，1赔10，下几周应该一赔20都有。
|
g******t
发帖数: 18158 | 27 无情的打脸，噼里啪啦
As early as June 2015, FiveThirtyEight argued that Donald Trump "isn't a
real candidate"[86] and maintained that Trump could not win the nomination
until late in the election season.[87] When Donald Trump became the
presumptive Republican nominee in May 2016, New York Times media columnist
Jim Rutenberg wrote that "predictions can have consequences" and criticized
FiveThirtyEight for underestimating Trump's chances. He argued that by
giving "Mr. Trump a 2 percent chance at the nomination despite strong polls
in his favor...they also arguably sapped the journalistic will to scour his
record as aggressively as those of his supposedly more serious rivals".[88] |
g******t
发帖数: 18158 | 28 打烂老婊砸走狗的碧莲
Criticism of presidential forecasts[edit]
In a series of posts in 2011 and 2012, FiveThirtyEight criticized the
forecasting methods that relied on macro-economic modeling of the electoral
outcomes.[538 80][538 81] According to Silver, models based primarily on the
macro-level performance of the economy (such as unemployment, inflation,
and the performance of the stock market), presidential approval ratings (
when an incumbent is running for re-election), and the ideological
positioning of the (potential) opposing candidates were useful for making
forecasts of the election outcome well in advance of election day, though
not very precise ones.
An article stating such a position published exactly one year before
election day 2012[47] was attacked in an online article in Bloomberg News by
Ron Klain, the former chief-of-staff to Vice President Biden and a
political advisor to Barack Obama.[59] Nate Silver wrote a defense of his
method in response. Silver's response was followed by another one from Klain
others on Silver's article and the debate with Klain.[538 82][61][62]
In late October and early November 2012, a number of conservative political
journalists issued criticisms of Nate Silver's predictions as overly biased
towards Barack Obama's chances of being re-elected president.[63][64][65][66
][67][68] Dean Chambers criticized Nate Silver and issued his own "unskewed"
prediction of the election. This prediction ultimately erred on four swing
states and missed Barack Obama's popular vote percentage by 1.7%, while Nate
Silver correctly predicted all 50 states and missed Barack Obama's popular
vote percentage by 0.3%. Dean Chambers admitted that his assumptions about
voter turnout were incorrect and that the pollsters' assumptions were very
accurate.[69]
During the final weeks prior to the November 6th election, some pundits also
criticized Silver's electoral model for conveying an undue sense of
predictability to the outcome as well as a conviction that Barack Obama was
ahead in the race and had a 75% probability of winning.[70] For example, New
York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote, "I know ... how I should
treat polling data. First, I should treat polls as a fuzzy snapshot of a
moment in time. I should not read them, and think I understand the future.
If there's one thing we know, it’s that even experts with fancy computer
models are terrible at predicting human behavior".[71][72]
In a more direct attack on Silver, in an article entitled "Nate Silver: One-
term celebrity?" Dylan Byers of Politico wrote, "For all the confidence
Silver puts in his predictions, he often gives the impression of hedging.
Which, given all the variables involved in a presidential election, isn't
surprising. For this reason and others—and this may shock the coffee-
drinking NPR types of Seattle, San Francisco and Madison, Wis.—more than a
few political pundits and reporters, including some of his own colleagues,
believe Silver is highly overrated."[64] Byers also quoted this comment by
Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe: "Nate Silver says this is a 73.6
percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign
thinks they have a 73 percent chance – they think they have a 50.1 percent
chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing,"
Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go
either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a toss-up
right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters,
computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're
jokes". |
Q**F
发帖数: 995 | |
A****y
发帖数: 2467 | 30 它都没有脸，你怎么打的了啊？
criticized
polls
his
【在 g******t 的大作中提到】
: 无情的打脸，噼里啪啦
: As early as June 2015, FiveThirtyEight argued that Donald Trump "isn't a
: real candidate"[86] and maintained that Trump could not win the nomination
: until late in the election season.[87] When Donald Trump became the
: presumptive Republican nominee in May 2016, New York Times media columnist
: Jim Rutenberg wrote that "predictions can have consequences" and criticized
: FiveThirtyEight for underestimating Trump's chances. He argued that by
: giving "Mr. Trump a 2 percent chance at the nomination despite strong polls
: in his favor...they also arguably sapped the journalistic will to scour his
: record as aggressively as those of his supposedly more serious rivals".[88]
|
|
|
j*********r
发帖数: 24733 | |
a*****1
发帖数: 3817 | 32 你真是打脸专家
【在 j*********r 的大作中提到】
: up
|
i**********k
发帖数: 5274 | 33 现在看这贴子觉得好笑。老婊子和奥黑确实有一群猪队友！米犹媒体想用假民调影响投
票意向，龙虾族居然奉为圣旨，龙虾族的智商低得令人发指。
民主党牛鬼蛇神和米犹媒体选后还不服输，继续煽动龙虾族抗议。龙虾族，就是一群被
卖了还替人家数钱的傻逼！ |
