Відео

What an eloquent man Douglas Alexander is. Thoroughly enjoyed the interview. Many thanks.

These guys are as villagey as they get.

I'm Danish. A very interesting interview. I'm not agreeing with Helle on the influence from social media. I absolutely believe it must be controlled better when it comes to: algorithm, bots, hate speech, criminal actions and disinformation.

Politicians today, apart from a few are not in the same class as a were.

look at rory's shirt. he does not shop at primani

America has boomed because it has talked a good game of free markets for everyone else meanwhile it has backed its IT sector to the hilt. Private money has followed gov investment not led it. We need to learn that lesson.

Fantastic, but BIBLICALLY STUFFED WITH ADS.

A tech bro American who confidently speak like they know everything. Characterising UK as rule-following because our new tube lines have barriers in comparison to NYC which doesn’t have have any new lines. And yet in the UK we don’t have jaywalking, we don’t have strict rules around women’s freedom to abortion, we didn’t implement a series of strict rules which separated the black population from whites, etc…

Dripping with arrogance, self assuredness and a lack of knowledge - a perfect Tory.

Nate is a political hack that loves democrats...his polling has always favored them even when they're losing...

An insane accent

It appears that hatred for one candidate influences objectivity.

Liberal democracy is under threat no matter who wins. Our political and economic systems are now totally dominated and controlled by a small handful of super rich individuals and the transfer of our national wealth to them is happening ever more quickly. There is no deep state. It is open and blatantly grinding working people down economically and taking away their democratic rights at the same time.

They should have got Allan Lichtman on. He has a far better track record of predicting outcomes (9 out of 10) with his 'Keys to the White House' model.

What if California didn’t go for Kamala Harris? That would be a real punch in the cunt.

Shouldn't it be about time the West realize the whole fight about woke-ness is the right's straw man strategy? Did we learn nothing from the critical race theory episode? It's straight out of Mao's playbook, and people don't give that monster enough credit (he is streets ahead in history's bodycount league table).

The commentary on the Trump chances is quite strange. There’s a roughly 1 in 3 chance of rolling a 5 or 6 on a die, but nobody is surprised when they see a five or a six. That also doesn’t mean the chances were wrong and nobody would think that.

Great discussion.

what a deranged convo

In the long term, membership of the CPTPP will benefit the UK economy by 0.08% according the Chatham House (CH) and the OBR. Compare that to the 4% (OBR) lost from Brexit and that the UK is a net loser from the trade deals negotiated so far (CH) surely it's a no brainer that if you want to enhance more rapidly the UK economy rejoining the single market (M) and custom's union (CU) has to be a top priority. Labour's belief that it can somehow succeed where the Tories failed in somehow melting the barrier that is the SM & CU is surely naïve at best and arrogant at worse especially as, according to .GOV & CH the overriding aim of the CPTPP membership is not economic growth but for the UK to globally influence international trade especially in the growing and emerging markets laughable surely by the big 3.

This man makes Trump sound sane and level headed. I'm guessing the interview was done in the US because they would section him H under the Mental Health Act here in the UK

I’ve played this 3 times as a podcast and I still haven’t stayed awake long enough to get to the end. 😅

While I understand that the hosts proffer a misleading definition of probability, Nate is still getting away with something dishonest here. He is quick to (rightly) dismiss the criticism of the 2016 model, but doesn't say a word when his model 'correctly predicted' the outcome in other election years. By his logic, the model was no more predictive in the years when it was credited than it was in 2016. So, for his 2012 model, for instance, he should jump in and say, "actually I didn't *predict* a Barack Obama victory, I just provided a specified range of likely outcomes." But he doesn't say that. He takes credit for predictiveness when it suits him, but denies that's his aim when it doesn't

"Hillary is at 71% chance... If I read this right, he's saying Hillary is basically winning" - I'm sorry Mr. Campbell, you are not reading this right, and unfortunately most of the public does not read this right. 71% means 71%. I'd say that the main point of the first two probability courses I took at the university was to learn to disregard any intuitive notions of probability because they are emphatically misleading. To roughly estimate the quality of his predictions, you could look at all the predictions he ever made and count how many times he was wrong. For example, if he placed 70% odds on 100 events, then, if he is "wrong" (less likely outcome happened) on about 30 events, then his estimate is actually good. If he placed 70% odds on 100 events and he was "wrong" on less than 10 of them (the less likely outcome happened fewer than 10 times), then his 70% prediction was not that good. Obviously, the realistic analysis would be more involved, since, I presume, his predictions weren't 70%/30% all the time. The point being, to quantify the quality of his predictions you should look on a collection of his predictions rather than on a single one of them.

this must be 3 weeks old really, so misleading that it has just come out, and the predictions could well be out of date.

I loved Nate Silver as a guest. He had such an interesting (risk, statistics) view of the world. Fascinating.

I recall Nate Silver saying that the 70-30 probability in 2016 equated to someone missing a 42 yard field goal in the NFL. I’m a giant fan. We beat Buffalo in the Super Bowl because their guy missed a 44 yard field goal in Miami in beautiful weather, no wind. so when I read that, I got chills up and down my spine because I know firsthand how often 4 2 yard field goals are missed.

Love you guys but you need to study statistics and probability a bit better. Might i suggest nate silvers new book?

His description of the UK as a place where the Media is thriving and Gambling isn't an issue? Gell-Mann Amnesia effect emanating strongly off this guy.

Big fan of this series and but as a minor point of order, could we have the recording date placed in the description? Sometimes you mention the date in the interview, but it makes understanding the context easier if we know this interview might be 2/3 weeks old. Many thanks!

I’m not clear why making Josh Shapiro the Vice-Presidential pick would have been a better choice. If Pennsylvania is critical, why would taking its very popular Governor out and sending him to Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and New Hampshire be smart? Keeping Shapiro campaigning in PA is clearly the far better move.

I think people don’t do well to understand probability once it becomes more extreme than 60-40. So 60-40, people understand that ok Hillary will win 60% likely and Trump wins 40%. So if you toss a coin 100 times, Hillary will win 60 times and Trump 40 times. Once it becomes 65-35 or 71-29, people feel it is not likely at all. This is not true. As Nate alluded to it, there are 2 error margins with polls: 1. Assuming you are polling little America, or rather little swing states - i.e. people you poll are exactly representative of people who will vote in the election, even then there is a margin of error - the traditional error when you are selecting a smaller sample out of your universe. Assume tasting few rice grains to check if the rice is cooked well. 2. The second error is because the people you actually survey is not representative. This is because there is difference between registered vs likely voters. There is difference between who answers polls. There is difference between if they trust the polls. So even if you adjust for cross tabs (like balance different groups by demographics and geographic to the real population), there is still an error possible. Assume making a dish where you have rice, potatoes, onions, chicken all mixed together, and then you ask a friend to pick a few of the items in the dish (you cannot look) and he can only tell you if they are soft or not. You have no idea if your friend picked the onion or the potato or if the potato was boiled and softened before being added to the mix. This is because if the avg of polls say you are 3% ahead in a state, it is resting on the fact that you have a good representation of the whole state and who are voting. It is quite difficult to predict. In a lot of countries where you have people winning by 10%, it is possible that the polls can be “accurate”. This is because even if you are wrong by 9.5%, the polls would say it was accurate as your side won. But, statistically which side won does not matter. The fact is how much the polls changed. This is why 2020 was worse for polling than 2016. People don’t remember it as Biden won all the states he was supposed to win according to polls. Even though, he won many states by a quarter or even tenth of the margins predicted.

So this interview was before the debate? It would be good if there was a date somewhere - 22 hours ago, it clearly was not.

Love your channels Allister and Rory. If you want to interview a real "prediction expert" check out Dr. Allen Lichtman he has predicted EVERY presidential election since Reagan. Nate silver is, sincerely an amateur compared to this man.

Nate Silver proves you can be anti-racist and ageist at the same time.

The French Enlightenment was profoundly antisemitic.

how old is this?

Elon Musk is on the autism spectrum. It doesn’t excuse his racism and antisemitism though.

There are a lot of people registering to vote that have never voted before. Pollsters use lists of likely voters. So it will be interesting to see if they vote and who they vote for.

This guys talks fast but seems to be saying almost nothing at all. It's mostly gibberish and none of it answering the questions. Was he on drugs?

What is wrong with that guy’s face? 😂

Prime Minister AND Chancellor both speak through their noses and apply glottal stops. The boy Rory is a pinko fantasist, but he at least understands that words should be sounded properly. It's not Reeves' fault that she is plain-looking, but it's a shame that her vowels haven't kept pace with her education. More seriously, Reeves bemoans the loss of energy self-sufficiency, but now looks-on whilst the eco-idiot Miliband closes down the North Sea energy industry. Go figure.

Alastair at the end of the interview keen to get Nate to say he would bet on Harris to win, but Nate being wiser than to rise to the bait, doubled down on his earlier comment that it is too close to call and he would lose a bit to the bookmaker on what is effectively a coin flip. Why is Alastair so desperate to hear good things about Harris, such as predictions from wise analysts?

….aaaand then you have the Electoral College and everything goes berserk.

I would have thought Rory/Alastair should interview Allan Lichtman (check out his UA-cam channel) who has a system (based on 13 keys to the Whitehouse) where he categorically names a winner so you can 100% say he was right or wrong - he did in fact predict a Trump win in 2016 and has correctly predicted the winner since Reagan. Some will say he incorrectly predicted Gore over Bush but he refutes that due to now known flaws in the Florida ballot helping Bush - not to mention Republican judges. Maybe a future interviewee?

SBF and Trump are products of a cancerous US national culture. Individualism, fake it til you make it, nuclear levels of narcissism, win at all costs, using wealth judge a persons value. All these things lead to horrible horrible people.

Maybe I’m not bright enough to follow what this guy says but man….!

Sorry to say I could only stomach three or four minutes of this interview. I found Alexander a sanctimonious, self congratulatory little creep, telling us what a principled, caring individual he is. I'm a self confessed cynic which means I can't take what people say at face value. Saville, Princess Diana, Blair, Branson, Anita Roddick....these are/were people that always told us how caring they are/were. And yet their actions speak/spoke differently. Alexander voted for taking Britain into the Iraq war and voted against investigations into the Iraq war. He truly is a Blairite/Cambpellite.....if such a word exists!

I love these interviews - but in this fast paced election season, please date them - this was obviously a pre debate interview?

Labour just one the UK election with 33% of the vote so probably not worth throwing stones when you live is a glass house