http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2017/03/10/fivethirtyeight-stat-whiz-nate-silver-there-really-was-liberal-media
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?) 
...
Silver: "The U.S. presidential election, as I've argued, was something of a similar case. No, the polls didn't show a toss-up, as they had in Brexit. But the reporting was much more certain of Clinton's chances than it should have been based on the polls. Much of The New York Times' coverage, for instance, implied that Clinton's odds were close to 100 percent. 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."
(NewsBusters cataloged another premature New York Times' victory lap two weeks before Trump's shocking win: "Victory In Sight, Clinton Presses Beyond Trump - Appeals to Vote Early - With Lead in the Polls, She Turns to Backing Other Democrats.")
WOW - that was a DOOZY of a clueless prediction, eh?! Leftist fart-bubble, indeed!
The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence
| 
