InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

fuagf

02/20/16 6:56 PM

#244995 RE: F6 #244991

Since i'd read Iowa and NH were two of Bernie's top 4 states, also since i'd never seen such as Nate's Bernie caucus edge position before, it surprised
me, too. Perhaps, as a Hillary win seems as suggested a forgone Pharaoh-like result Nate is a bit bored with it all, so decided to add some spice to the race.

Dunno, lol, whatever any speculation re his reason for that 'stretch' his/their forecasting and analysis

"My point is not that the incumbent party actually has an advantage after two consecutive terms in office. (Some statistical models assume that it does, which I regard
as just as questionable a claim as Ms. McArdle’s.) Instead, I’d make the more modest assertion that its odds of winning a third term are, on first approximation, 50-50."
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/

remains as interestingly incisive, and definitely more spot on than most. Always keeping in mind
that politically on a liberal conservative divide your U.S.A is basically a 50-50 country. As is Australia.





icon url

arizona1

03/09/16 9:08 AM

#246037 RE: F6 #244991

fuagf -- I'll continue to wait to see if Nate is displaying any particular insight this time around (haven't seen any such yet)

Exactly! Nate gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning MI last night. Big fail! Maybe he should stick with baseball! lol

According to our final polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton had a greater than 99% chance of winning the Michigan primary.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/