High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / evaluation

Published · transcript-backed

Nate Silver: evaluation

23 Feb 2016 Conversations with Tyler Nate Silver on the Supreme Court and the Underrated Stat for Finding Good Food (Live at Mason)

“When underdogs win, they tend to win narrowly, and if Clinton wins some of the races she should have won or should have lost — because superdelegates turn a narrow Bernie win by a field goal into, “Oh, after further review, we’re going to have an overtime quarter.”

— Nate Silver

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Nate Silver
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
evaluation
Recorded
23 Feb 2016
Publisher
Conversations with Tyler

Transcript context

…Last I saw, Bernie’s share was at something like 17 cents. At that price, do you go long or short? Probably short, but I think it’s also not dramatically mispriced. The thing people miss is that unlike on the GOP side where Trump’s at least passed the first test — he has people who are out there, willing to vote for him. There was some doubt about that, especially after Iowa, where he underperformed his polls. Sanders, we haven’t really seen. Can he win states that are not very white and very liberal? Maybe he can. Nevada seems to be pretty close. I’m just saying, we haven’t really received that much information that would make you update your priors about Sanders all that much. He also probably has to win by, with a little bit of room to spare. If it’s a tie, then Clinton will probably win on the basis of superdelegates. If she loses by a couple of points, but it’s close enough — so if you’re an underdog in a football game, and you lose unless you win by more than a field goal, it actually reduces your win probability quite a bit. If you’re the favorite already, then maybe it wouldn’t, but that’s tricky. When underdogs win, they tend to win narrowly, and if Clinton wins some of the races she should have won or should have lost — because superdelegates turn a narrow Bernie win by a field goal into, “Oh, after further review, we’re going to have an overtime quarter. The superdelegates will weigh in instead,” then I don’t know. I think 10 or 15 percent, somewhere in that range is probably about right. We may come back to politics, but let’s turn to a nobler endeavor, sports. [laughter] You’re a fan of baseball, and I’d like to ask you, of all the different baseball records, which is the one that is most impressive to you, or the most a statistical aberration, and try to stay a bit modern. We both know in 1889, Hoss Radbourn won 59 games. Start with Wilson’s — was it 36 triples in 1912? That, and up through the modern age. What’s the most statistically impressive baseball record, and why?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence