538’s Nate Silver Predicts the Oscars

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

If you thought you had post-election letdown syndrome, with the endless hours of TV punditry and blog pontification that once filled your days and nights suddenly evaporating, imagine what Nate Silver feels like. His labor-intensive web site, fivethirtyeight.com, rocketed to prominence last year as the most reliable and thorough electoral predictor around, but after the election, what does he have to post about? Well, it turns out his geeky brilliance can be used to predict other things as well, including the lame old Oscars, heading to your TV this Sunday. Silver fed the history of Oscar winners into his supercomputer for New York magazine, and the results included both the obvious and the somewhat surprising.
Slumdog Millionaire is given a 99% chance of winning Best
Picture, and director Danny Boyle gets an even higher 99.7% chance of
winning Best Director, with only Milk and Gus Van Sant having
an outside chance at the statues. The late Heath Ledger is an 85% lock on Best Supporting
Actor, while Mickey Rourke has a slightly less assured 71% chance at
Best Actor (compared to Sean Penn’s 19%). Kate Winslet gets a 67.6%
shot at Best Actress although Meryl Streep is her only competition at
32.4%, but it’s the Best Supporting Actress category that has a surprise: Benjamin Button‘s Taraji P. Henson has a 51%
chance, followed by Penelope Cruz at 24.6%, an inversion of the apparent conventional wisdom. The magic computer’s
reasoning was that Henson is the only actress in the category whose
film is also a Best Picture nominee, which turns out to be a major correlative
factor. So, if you want to win the $10 at your Oscar party, you might
want to consider Silver’s analysis, as well as my own motto when it
comes to picking winners: “The Oscars: It’s Not About Good Movies!”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend