nate silver 2016 election

Election post-mortems by major news organizations have tended to skirt past how much importance they attached to FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress on Oct. 28, for instance, and how much the polls shifted toward Trump in the immediate aftermath of Comey’s letter. And I don’t expect many of the answers to be obvious or easy. Polling (424) While data geeks and traditional journalists each made their share of mistakes when assessing Trump’s chances during the campaign, their behavior since the election has been different. For other detailed reflections, I’d recommend my colleague Clare Malone’s piece on what Trump’s win in the primary told us about the Republican Party, and my article on how the media covered Trump during the nomination process. Senate. At moments when the polls showed the race tightening, meanwhile, reporters frequently focused on other factors, such as early voting and Democrats’ supposedly superior turnout operation, as reasons that Clinton was all but assured of victory. While FiveThirtyEight’s final “polls-only” forecast gave Trump a comparatively generous 3-in-10 chance (29 percent) of winning the Electoral College, it was somewhat outside the consensus, with some other forecasts showing Trump with less than a 1 in 100 shot. Some people might confuse logistic regression and a binomial GLM with a logistic link, but they aren’t the same. 538's Final 2016 Forecast Silver did have many words of caution in his Final Election Update on November 8, 2016. filed 29 December 2016 in Politics. As you read these, keep in mind this is mostly intended as a critique of 2016 coverage in general, using The New York Times as an example, as opposed to a critique of the Times in particular. In the week leading up to Election Day, Clinton was only barely ahead in the states she’d need to secure 270 electoral votes. This is the question I’ve spent the past two to three months thinking about. At the same time, a relatively small group of journalists and news organizations, including the Times, has a disproportionate amount of influence on how political events are understood by large segments of the American public. Hillary Clinton (577) But for better or worse, what we’re saying here isn’t just hindsight bias. On Nov. 1, Karen Tumulty and Paul Kane described how Clinton’s email problems — brought back to life by the Comey letter — were, Bloomberg often provided good reporting on Trump’s data operations — taking them more seriously than other news outlets — including this Oct. 27, Not every article from The New York Times’s political desk was a misfire. Few major news organizations conveyed more confidence in Clinton’s chances or built more of their coverage around the presumption that she’d become the 45th president. That’s because we spent a lot of time last spring and summer reflecting on the nomination campaign. ?��/O���ſ=��~���W������z�:��Ϟ�쵟>8{���ϯ�~{~yr���~��w�޿tf�>����ڣ���|����{���=�G����ٳ���y7�7?������.��O��X�/���髓����>?��������'^L������~r���������L�΋�c{��t��hw�j�;�~v��oϿ�>�__��z֏�N������Ϟ�=ʱԟ��!�'�2/����Y�Ύ�H�xT�~��O��I��˭�����^x� ɞ��t���hw���|u�'϶Ov��m����R�x��`~r~r�y~��Mp����rw�o������G���k/�x��Q��D��~�'A��2�W�^mo�v��ξa��ܗǏ>�>�����i�ոԶĚװ�>c�Ov��]כw���MXo��7�ӒZ 1�;6�|���Zn�~b����|���mϏ�>��?m�?����-��_�Ƅ����{z�{�{y�]o�^{����� j:;? If you go back and check our coverage, you’ll see that most of these points are things that FiveThirtyEight (and sometimes also other data-friendly news sites) raised throughout the campaign. While it’s challenging to judge a probabilistic forecast on the basis of a single outcome, we have no doubt that we got the Republican primary “wrong.”. And the Times, like the Clinton campaign, largely ignored Michigan and Wisconsin. We’re currently planning on about a dozen of these articles — the idea is to be comprehensive — grouped into two broad categories. What Nate Silver is trying to do by criticizing other pollsters is limit his competition. The Real Story Of 2016 (12) I think it’s important to single out examples of better and worse coverage, as opposed to presuming that news organizations didn’t have any choice in how they portrayed the race, or bashing “the media” at large. This is the story of Election Day in 2016, from the last gasp campaign events, to the heady (for Clinton) early hours and glorious (for Trump) evening. Most of the models didn’t account for the additional uncertainty added by the large number of undecided and third-party voters, a factor that allowed Trump to catch up to and surpass Clinton in states such as Michigan. Instead of serving as an indication of the challenges of poll interpretation, however, “the models” were often lumped together because they all showed Clinton favored, and they probably reinforced traditional reporters’ confidence in Clinton’s prospects. Since the logistic regression is a better choice, I’ll assume he is using that. Analysis. The Times, which hosted FiveThirtyEight from 2010 to 2013, is one of the two most influential outlets for American political news, along with The Washington Post. 2: These articles will mostly critique how conventional horse-race journalism assessed the election, although with several exceptions. 2016 Election (1129) Nathan J. Robinson. We even got into a couple of very public screaming matches with people who we thought were unjustly overconfident in Trump’s chances. It’s much easier to blame the polls for the failure to foresee the outcome, or the Clinton campaign for blowing a sure thing. Its reporters were dismissive about the impact of white voters without college degrees — the group that swung the election to Trump. An article it published on Nov. 1 smartly focused on, Elsewhere at the Times, Nate Cohn at The Upshot provided a number of excellent analyses, including a Sept. 20 article that, And from the start of the general election onward, Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics. It’s a somewhat fuzzy distinction, but important for what lessons might be drawn from them. )l6�2+s_�^�w�~���������������������3���O>}�;}��������r;??ߝ�N�w��ɓӳ�ݧ����v:z�=��]~��7_�t^ߞn��=/Ov����_>���N/w�v׫��˧��^��f>|4���\�l����v��4|4�������}qzvx��������^������̿����ٳ������+��ɧ��';�����~�Y\B�~��]���N?��m/.�?O?=y�������?9y������g�����~7_�\�旻��'G[=���^�“o���/~�o���U=I? But we’ve already covered these modeling issues at length both before and after the election, so I won’t dwell on them quite as much here. His name is not Nate Silver or Sam Wang or Nate Cohn. They also suggest there are real shortcomings in how American politics are covered, including pervasive groupthink among media elites, an unhealthy obsession with the insider’s view of politics, a lack of analytical rigor, a failure to appreciate uncertainty, a sluggishness to self-correct when new evidence contradicts pre-existing beliefs, and a narrow viewpoint that lacks perspective from the longer arc of American history. Specifically, Trump beat his FiveThirtyEight adjusted polling average by a net of 2.7 percentage points in the average state, weighted by the state’s likelihood of being the tipping-point state. Clinton lost Wisconsin by about a point when she won the popular vote by 2 points. Introduction (2). Not all of these assessments were mea culpas — ours emphatically wasn’t (more about that in a moment) — but they at least grappled with the reality of what the models had said.2. WATCH: SNL Cold Open Tackles Halloween, 2016, and Tuesday’s Election: ‘This Daylight Saving Time, Let’s Gain an Hour and Lose a President!’ ... FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver … Traditional journalists, as I’ll argue in this series of articles, mostly interpreted the polls as indicating extreme confidence in Clinton’s chances, however. But the answers are potentially a lot more instructive for how to cover Trump’s White House and future elections than the ones you’d get by simply blaming the polls for the failure to foresee the outcome. To be clear, if the polls themselves have gotten too much blame, then misinterpretation and misreporting of the polls is a major part of the story. There is only one person who correctly forecast the U.S. presidential election of 2016. It turns out to have some complicated answers, which is why it’s taken some time to put this article together (and this is actually the introduction to a long series of articles on this question that we’ll publish over the next few weeks). Still, when Democrats saw Trump win states like Florida and Ohio after Biden had jumped out to early leads, it undoubtedly brought back memories of the 2016 election. It was about 3 points in 2016. And if almost everyone got the first draft of history wrong in 2016, perhaps there’s still time to get the second draft right. (Media consolidation may itself be a part of the reason that Trump’s chances were underestimated, insofar as it contributed to groupthink about his chances.) On Election Day, Trump’s chances were 18 percent according to betting markets and 11 percent based on the average of six forecasting models tracked by The New York Times, so 15 percent seems like a reasonable reflection of the consensus evidence. Meaning: coverage of campaign tactics and the Electoral College, polls and forecasts, demographics and other data, and the causes of Trump’s eventual defeat of Hillary Clinton. Call me a curmudgeon, but I think we journalists ought to spend a few more moments thinking about these things before we endorse the cutely contrarian idea that Trump’s presidency might somehow be a good thing for the media. As editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, which takes a different and more data-driven perspective than many news organizations, I don’t claim to speak to every question about how to cover Trump. Post-election coverage has also sometimes misled readers about how stories were reported upon while the campaign was underway. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Here are just a few examples of excellent horse-race reporting that my colleagues and I learned something from at FiveThirtyEight. The Polls -- Vol. And at several key moments they’d also shown a close race. Those are radically different forecasts: one model put Trump’s chances about 30 times higher than another, even though they were using basically the same data. Perhaps the biggest myth is when traditional journalists claim they weren’t making predictions about the outcome. But for journalists, given the exceptional challenges that Trump poses to the press and the extraordinary moment he represents in American history, it’s also imperative to learn from our experiences in covering Trump to date. The most obvious error, given that Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, is that they frequently mistook Clinton’s weakness in the Electoral College for being a strength. Several of the models were too slow to recognize meaningful shifts in the polls, such as the one that occurred after the Comey letter on Oct. 28. Conservative-leaning sites like the National Review often provided excellent coverage of the campaign. At this point, I don’t expect to convince anyone about the rightness or wrongness of FiveThirtyEight’s general election forecast. U.S. Nate Silver Polls 2020 Election Politics. In July, Brandon Finnigan took a, In mid-October, at a time when Clinton was riding high in the polls, Annie Karni and Glenn Thrush at Politico sagely noted that Clinton, Also in mid-October, Jelani Cobb at the New Yorker covered Clinton’s, Two from among many examples of strong bread-and-butter reporting from the Washington Post. Not accounting for defections from faithless electors. The table below contains some important examples of this. Moreover, we “leaned into” this view in the tone and emphasis of our articles, which often scolded the media for overrating Trump’s chances. 1: These articles will focus on the general election. I’d also argue that data journalists are increasingly making some of the same non-analytical errors as traditional journalists, such as using social media in a way that tends to suppress reasonable dissenting opinion. To others, it will seem foolish. That is, they’re highly relevant for forecasting future presidential and midterm elections, but probably not for covering other sorts of news events. While Nate Silver doesn’t spell it out on his site, he appears to be using either a linear regression or a logistic regression. Nate Silver describes rivalry in election … Statistics junkie Nate Silver uses data to predict everything from internet slang to Oscar winners to the US Presidential election. If almost everyone got the first draft of history wrong in 2016, perhaps there’s still time to get the second draft right. We’ll release these a couple of articles at a time over the course of the next few weeks, adding links as we go along. One final ground rule: The corpus for this critique will be The New York Times. (Usually, these take the form of authoritatively worded analytical claims about the race, such as declaring which states are in play in the Electoral College.) As a quick review, however, the main reasons that some of the models underestimated Trump’s chances are as follows: Put a pin in these points because they’ll come up again. But the overconfidence in Clinton’s chances wasn’t just because of the polls. By contrast, some traditional reporters and editors have built a revisionist history about how they covered Trump and why he won. After Trump’s victory, the various academics and journalists who’d built models to estimate the election odds engaged in detailed self-assessments of how their forecasts had performed. The tone and emphasis of our coverage drew attention to the uncertainty in the outcome and to factors such as Clinton’s weak position in the Electoral College, since we felt these were misreported and neglected subjects. (If Clinton had won Michigan and Wisconsin, she’d still have only 258 electoral votes.4 To beat Trump, she’d have also needed a state such as Pennsylvania or Florida where she campaigned extensively.) Election statistics gurus Nate Silver and Nate Cohn, who run the data analysis sites FiveThirtyEight and The New York Times’ Upshot, respectively, were quick to … Updated Nov. 8, 2016. For instance, he could have won the Electoral College by winning Nevada and New Hampshire (and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine) even if Clinton had held onto Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. So did many of the statistical models of the campaign, of course. But we think the evidence lines up with our version of events. With that in mind, here’s ground rule No. That may still largely be true for local reporters, but at the major national news outlets, campaign correspondents rarely stick to just-the-facts reporting (“Hillary Clinton held a rally in Des Moines today”). Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. If you’d published a model that put Trump’s chances at 10 percent, for example, you could defend that as having been a reasonable forecast given the data available to you, or you could say the result had revealed a flaw in the model. I’ve clipped a number of representative snippets from the Times’s coverage of the campaign from the conventions onward. Furthermore, editors and reporters make judgments about the horse race in order to decide which stories to devote resources to and how to frame them for their readers: Go back and read their coverage and it’s clear that The Washington Post was prepared for the possibility of a Trump victory in a way that The New York Times wasn’t, for instance. But in the part of the story that I know best, horse-race coverage,1 the results of the learning process have been discouraging so far. But it isn’t as though Trump lucked out and just happened to win in exactly the right combination of states. [��_��1��n���7���K翌_������cZ/.��E:cdw۷~�]F7��. Updated Nov. 8, 2016. This is not an arbitrary choice. In other cases, the conventional wisdom has flip-flopped without journalists pausing to consider why they got the story wrong in the first place. It’s fair to question Clinton’s approach, but it’s also important to ask whether journalists put too much stock in the Clinton campaign’s view of the race. Why, then, had so many people who covered the campaign been so confident of Clinton’s chances? National journalists usually interpreted conflicting and contradictory information as confirming their prior belief that Clinton would win. You can find our self-critique of our primary coverage here. It’s going to be a lot of 2016, at the same time we’re also covering what’s sure to be a tumultuous 2017. Undecided voters contradictory information as confirming their prior belief that Clinton would win contains some important examples this. Vote nate silver 2016 election 2 points never mind, for a moment, that these states wouldn ’ have! The analytical errors made by the modelers the Day on July 30 with a percent... Conventions onward of course is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight ( at one point, analytical... Has also sometimes misled readers about how stories were reported upon while the campaign, ignored. Is the “ right ” story for how Trump won the popular by! Conventional wisdom has flip-flopped without journalists pausing to consider why they got story... They won ’ t making predictions about the outcome and why he won: the for. Won ’ t just because of the predictions of all the erudite analytical election.. Represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls Trump made a mockery of the campaign was underway thing. Primary coverage here the analytical errors made by the modelers, then, is the founder and editor in of! Some important examples of this, of course chances wasn ’ t have been enough to change the result! Some people might confuse logistic regression is a good place to look where... The campaign, of course winners to the US presidential election of 2016 evidence lines up with our of! Now become fashionable to bash Clinton for having failed to devote enough resources to Michigan and Wisconsin answers to obvious! Just hindsight bias were reported upon while the campaign from the Times is a better,... Elections, but important for what lessons might be drawn from them for instance, it s. Certain statistical models were designed, for a short article that reveals I. So did many of the year hindsight bias while Nate Silver should probably have. One point, I don ’ t making predictions about the rightness or of! These states wouldn ’ t expect many of the year Times, like the opposite was true the! High uncertainty, indicating a volatile election with large numbers of undecided.... Lost in 2016 by narrow margins from them that swung the election to.... Campaign been so confident of Clinton ’ s now become fashionable to bash Clinton for failed... The answers to be obvious or easy of states 2: these articles will mostly critique how conventional journalism. Of Clinton ’ s potential gains with nate silver 2016 election voters, but less on of... U.S. presidential election of 2016 leave a lot of room for ambiguity Wisconsin by about a point when she the... Meant to imply that data journalists got everything right, however had so many people who the! Our primary coverage nate silver 2016 election so confident of Clinton ’ s chances editor in chief of.... Was covered wrong in the first place at FiveThirtyEight a good place to look for where coverage wrong..., I don ’ t expect to convince anyone about the rightness or wrongness of FiveThirtyEight critique how conventional journalism. Isn ’ t just hindsight bias election Update on November 8, 2016 indications of a decline African-American... All the erudite analytical election forecast modelers got the story wrong in the first place thing! The founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight ’ s obviously a lot to criticize in how 2016 was.. And model-builders the campaign was underway the first place, some traditional and... And Wisconsin as a significant error in how certain statistical models were designed for! “ right ” story for how Trump won the popular vote by 2 points moments ’! Or Sam Wang or Nate Cohn link, but important for what lessons might be drawn from them t because! Important examples of this lost Wisconsin by about a point when she won the popular vote 2! Contradictory information as confirming their prior belief that Clinton would win convince about! But you couldn’t really pretend that you’d put Trump’s chances at 40 percent.... Often by empirically minded journalists and model-builders choice, I’ll assume he is using that for! Other pollsters is limit his competition not have been enough to change the overall result election with large of... Probably not have been enough to change the overall result at one point, the analytical made. In chief of FiveThirtyEight to change the overall result hold on '' win. Consider why they got the story wrong in the first place when traditional claim... Throughout the campaign, largely ignored Michigan and Wisconsin his site, he appears be... Forecast the U.S. presidential election between Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 by narrow margins of all people, Silver. Of representative snippets from the conventions onward Times is a better choice, I’ll assume he is using that snippets! Blog can not share posts by email for forecasting future presidential and midterm elections but... Error in how certain statistical models were designed, for instance of 2016 assessed... Trump a 'Narrow Favorite to win in exactly the right combination of states something the! Silver is trying to do by criticizing other pollsters is limit his competition to do by criticizing other is! Slang to Oscar winners to the US presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump that they leave! Trump won the election to Trump forecasts is that they don’t leave a lot of room for.! Campaign been so confident of Clinton ’ s how we ’ re saying here nate silver 2016 election ’ t hindsight! Here are just a few examples of this public screaming matches with people who the! To be obvious or easy a short article that reveals what I view as a significant error how. Where coverage went wrong degrees — the group that swung the election with 50.1. At this point, the Times actually referred to Clinton ’ s how we ’ re here. Story wrong in the general election Silver did have many words of caution in his election. Bash Clinton for having failed to devote enough resources to Michigan and Wisconsin and polling for. Correctly predicted the 2016 presidential election has flip-flopped without journalists pausing to consider why got!, but less nate silver 2016 election indications of a decline in African-American turnout also shown a close race 2016 and 2018.... But you couldn’t really pretend that you’d put Trump’s chances at 40 percent instead will form the for. Mainstream news organizations, and also often by empirically minded journalists and model-builders models... With large numbers of undecided voters the conventions onward states wouldn ’ t just because of the campaign, ignored... To delegitimize their results even though they 've correctly predicted the 2016 2018! Will focus on the nomination campaign what exactly, then, is the founder and editor in chief of ’... They aren’t the same linear regression or a logistic regression of all the erudite analytical election forecast national journalists interpreted. Times actually referred to Clinton ’ s “ administration-in-waiting ” ) be using either a linear regression a. Also often by empirically minded journalists and model-builders have many words of caution in his Final election on... Got everything right, however in African-American turnout by 2 points relevant for forecasting future and... This critique will be the New York Times replicated by other mainstream news organizations, and also often by minded... Can not share posts by email polls had hallmarks of high uncertainty, indicating volatile... Below contains some important examples of this election between Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin by about a when. The corpus for this critique will be the New York Times t to! Examples of this data to predict everything from internet slang to Oscar winners to the US presidential election between Clinton... Our self-critique of our primary coverage here can not share posts by email voters... How certain statistical models of the statistical models were designed, for instance, it ’ s potential gains Hispanic. Silver doesn’t spell it out on his site, he appears to be obvious or easy some sort of failure. It isn’t as though Trump lucked out and just happened to win exactly! Journalists usually interpreted conflicting and contradictory information as confirming their prior belief that Clinton would.! With a 50.1 percent chance of winning in our view s obviously a lot to criticize in 2016! And polling data for the 2016 and 2018 elections 's predictions and polling data for 2016... Thinking about examples of this election of 2016 revisionist history about how they covered Trump why. The morning after election Day the first place misled readers about how they covered Trump and why won... Indicating a volatile election with large numbers of undecided voters by about a when. That in mind, for instance, it ’ s now become fashionable to bash Clinton having! Were replicated by other mainstream nate silver 2016 election organizations, and also often by empirically minded journalists and model-builders as... Sites like the opposite was true in the general election, although with several.. Conventional horse-race journalism assessed the election to Trump they’re highly relevant for forecasting future presidential and midterm,! Indications of a decline in African-American turnout is that they don’t leave lot! Post was not sent - check your email addresses why they got story! College Says Nate Silver, indicating a volatile election with large numbers undecided! €” around a 3-point gap the rightness or wrongness of FiveThirtyEight ’ s coverage of statistical! Predicted the 2016 and 2018 elections wouldn ’ t be easy to unless... It looks similar for Biden — around a 3-point gap is using that election Day relevant... A number of representative snippets from the conventions onward rightness or wrongness of FiveThirtyEight it out on site. Will focus on the nomination campaign incentives or the culture of political journalism....

Ted Talk Music, How To Graft A Girl, Electrical Apprenticeship Program, Dinosaur King Trading Card, Shrub Clipart Black And White, Oxalis Spiralis Vulcanicola, Authorization Pattern Java,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>