This is no contradiction, it just means there's an overwhelming 92% chance that he will win, no matter how close it is.
Win or lose, you have come off as one of the biggest douches on this board. I hope that you're ok with that.
Except he didn't say close - he said landslide. And he defines landslide in his model. It would really help if you actually knew something about his model when you discuss it. And 300 EVs is very close, historically.
Here's what I know about his model and you don't. His model is useless. Averaging and weighting polls together that are fraught with 80% inaccuracy regarding voter turnout makes his predictor useless for presidential election purposes.
You're not very good at staying on topic. Do you withdraw your claim about the landslide? Since we all know you don't know what you're talking about, you can have some time to go do some research and come back. You probably won't find the answers on your wingnut sites though - you may have to look at the actual model.
I am not withdrawing anything I have said. It's all up here for everybody to read and cipher through to determine how much of it is accurate.
The fact that he can't understand the difference between a 92% chance of winning and a landslide is hilarious. It puts all his posts into context. It's pretty obvious he thinks something along the lines of "Nate Silver is predicting Obama will get 92% of the votes". A further illustration is how he thinks oversampling is a tactic for adding bias when it's really used to ELIMINATE bias - as if sampling more democrats automatically means that the poll will lean more to an Obama victory lol. Brilliant. ZBoy must be laughing his ass off right about now.
EXCELLENT News for Romney. He has made steady gains in the Silver forecast this AM - pushing his probability up over 9%, down from last night's 8% nadir. NEXT STOP: 50/50 and sweet vindication.
You should withdraw from this bet, or the two of you should have made it strictly for D&D. Yes, you would take some heat, but add an apology for overreaching on the terms of the bet and most members will blow it off after a while, IMO. I offered basso a wager. If Romney wins, I wouldn't start a thread in D&D for a year. If Obama wins, he doesn't start a thread in D&D for a year. He wouldn't take the bet, having absolutely no conviction in what he spouts here, unlike you. That's the sort of bet you should have made. You shouldn't have risked posting about the Rocks and the league because of a bet in D&D. It just isn't worth it.
Can't you see? jopatmc was right all along. Last night Silver had Obama at 92%, today it's at 90.9%. HE'S MOVING BACK TOWARDS 50%! IT'S FINALLY HAPPENING!!!!!
This is why so many don't really trust Nate Silver's forecasts: they don't understand them. They see the 90.9% and just discredit it because they think he's saying that's the percent of the popular vote or electoral college votes he'll get. They see that number and decide that it cannot possibly be realistic because everyone else has been saying it's a close race! The 90.9% doesn't mean it won't be close. Given the electoral college and local polling of swing states, melted together with national polling, you can easily use statistics and probability to figure out a percent chance of which way each state will swing. Using that, you can figure out a probability for each potential outcome, and combine those outcomes into an overall probability. It's just math. Math has no liberal bias (contrary to what some believe). Poll choice is the only part where selection bias by Silver can come into play, and he regularly shows which polls he's using... and there are a lot of 'em. I just that sheer number of polls and math than someone else's "gut". Silver hasn't done anything revolutionary whatsoever; I imagine each party has a mathematician on their side that does similar analytics. However, each side must continue to show a veil of confidence, despite what their statistics may be saying.