Nate Silver: 2016 is a tossup; most conventional wisdom analysis is flimsy

[JRP1994]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/

[MT Treasurer]

Nate, you Republican hack! How dare you suggest that the election will be "competitive"? Hillary is inevitable, get over it, right-wingers!

[bobloblaw]

While Ive thought that Hillary would win, Ive also thought the final results will be closer than 2012.

Hillary isnt going to run for Obama's third term and greatly improve among white and blue collar voters. That would imply those voters liked the Obama message, just not Obama (which polling shows the opposite has mostly been true). 

[Bull Moose Base]

He's wrong. go look at Jonathan Chait's column from today.

Obama will be the 5th term limited president but the parties have diverged ideologically; there are much fewer swing voters today than 15 let alone 55 years ago. Also, Silver should know better than to consider midterm electorates as relevant for whether or not there's a Democratic majority in presidential elections. In the latter, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and the demographic make-up of presidential electorates has been trending more Democratic still. He also dismisses the D electoral college advantage by arguing there is no "firewall".  Silver is smarter than that. Republicans can win but they have to sweep the swing states to do so. Democrats only need to stop a GOP sweep.

He's right that the economy is unpredictable and that Bush or Walker won't change the race much but calling it a toss-up is arbitrary. Silver is better at analyzing polls a month before election day than predicting with hunches (like when he gave Hillary only an 80% chance to be the nominee 2 months ago or whatever).

As I said 2 years ago, Hillary has the easiest path of any non-incumbent in modern times. I'd say she's close to 70% to be the next president, incredibly high for someone on the day they announce.

[bobloblaw]

He's wrong. go look at Jonathan Chait's column from today.

Obama will be the 5th term limited president but the parties have diverged ideologically; there are much fewer swing voters today than 15 let alone 55 years ago. Also, Silver should know better than to consider midterm electorates as relevant for whether or not there's a Democratic majority in presidential elections. In the latter, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and the demographic make-up of presidential electorates has been trending more Democratic still. He also dismisses the D electoral college advantage by arguing there is no "firewall".  Silver is smarter than that. Republicans can win but they have to sweep the swing states to do so. Democrats only need to stop a GOP sweep.

He's right that the economy is unpredictable and that Bush or Walker won't change the race much but calling it a toss-up is arbitrary. Silver is better at analyzing polls a month before election day than predicting with hunches (like when he gave Hillary only an 80% chance to be the nominee 2 months ago or whatever).

As I said 2 years ago, Hillary has the easiest path of any non-incumbent in modern times. I'd say she's close to 70% to be the next president, incredibly high for someone on the day they announce.

Nate Silver hasnt been wrong yet.

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Nate, you Republican hack! How dare you suggest that the election will be "competitive"? Hillary is inevitable, get over it, right-wingers!

2000, was a Lean GOP, and young latinos and blacks made it close, in FL. All she needs is that same enthusiam from those to close the deal in CO, NV and Pa, NH.

[MT Treasurer]

boboblaw, stop complaining! Who cares about "statistics" or "facts" when it comes to Hillary? She is invincible!

[King]

This analysis is pure wishful thinking. He doesn't even try to add any data to this beyond a graph that shows she's already more popular than the entire field, but says "eh, don't pay attention to that" for no reason.

"Yea, Obama's approval ratings are middling and have been for years but you know but they could decline more... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, the economy is supposed to matter but I'd warn against that... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, Democrats have this advantage with non-whites, but maybe they don't we'll see... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, Romney got completely tarnished by a bunch of crazies in the primary last time, but it won't happen this time... (, no reasoning given)"

"Jeb Bush is just moderate enough to be more popular than Clinton (, lmao)"

boboblaw, stop complaining! Who cares about "statistics" or "facts" when it comes to Hillary? She is invincible!

If you actually read the article, you'd see Nate didn't bother to compile any statistics or facts and is just op-eding using his name as a reason to trust it.

Joke article.

[bobloblaw]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/

A clear level headed analysis

[bobloblaw]

This analysis is pure wishful thinking. He doesn't even try to add any data to this beyond a graph that shows she's already more popular than the entire field, but says "eh, don't pay attention to that" for no reason.

"Yea, Obama's approval ratings are middling and have been for years but you know but they could decline more... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, the economy is supposed to matter but I'd warn against that... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, Democrats have this advantage with non-whites, but maybe they don't we'll see... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, Romney got completely tarnished by a bunch of crazies in the primary last time, but it won't happen this time... (, no reasoning given)"

"Jeb Bush is just moderate enough to be more popular than Clinton (, lmao)"

boboblaw, stop complaining! Who cares about "statistics" or "facts" when it comes to Hillary? She is invincible!

If you actually read the article, you'd see Nate didn't bother to compile any statistics or facts and is just op-eding using his name as a reason to trust it.

Joke article.

No, not at all. You obviously dont understand story telling. He is laying out the premise of his case which will expand as the campaign progresses.

As for not using stats, he is using his past statistical evidence in compiling this article.

[King]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/nate-silver-handicaps-2012-election.html

Is Obama Toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election
by Nate Silver

NOV. 3, 2011

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nate does a fine job of adding 10 polls together and dividing by 10 to find the average, but his analysis is no better than the wish-wish media pundits he claims to hate. "This election is going to be an epic Florida 2000 tossup! Please subscribe!"

[Beezer]

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

When is a Republican going to get to 52% though? Fact of the matter is that a Democrat can probably lose the PV by around a percentage point yet still win the EC. That by no means indicates that a Democrat is a shoo-in but rather that any Democrat starts the electoral race with a headstart independent of the various "fundamentals."

[bobloblaw]

Nate, you Republican hack! How dare you suggest that the election will be "competitive"? Hillary is inevitable, get over it, right-wingers!

2000, was a Lean GOP, and young latinos and blacks made it close, in FL. All she needs is that same enthusiam from those to close the deal in CO, NV and Pa, NH.

ahhhh....no the Jewish vote and Leibermann made it close in FL. GW Bush did worse among Jews in 2000, than Dole did in 1996. The only demographic group to move away from the GOP. Had Bush done as well as Dole among Jews, he would have won FL by 60,000 votes. (Bush got 22% of the Jewish vote in 2000, versus Dole at 26% in Florida).

[bobloblaw]

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

When is a Republican going to get to 52% though? Fact of the matter is that a Democrat can probably lose the PV by around a percentage point yet still win the EC. That by no means indicates that a Democrat is a shoo-in but rather that any Democrat starts the electoral race with a headstart independent of the various "fundamentals."

But that isnt a "Blue Wall" Blue Wall implies states that are Dem regardless of how well the GOP does in the PV. That somehow if the GOP candidate got 51% or more, these states are so inelastic and independent of national trends, they remain in the Dem column. They dont.

When will the GOP get 52% of the vote. Very easily. When the Dem President takes the oath of office with 5% unemployment and runs for re-election with 7% unemployment. When the Dem party tears itself apart over how to deal with a recession.

In fact I can see that coming in 2017-2020. A recession with 8% unemployment. Pres Clinton and a GOP Congress. Liberals Dems want a $2 trillion stimulus plan with no tax cuts. GOP wants tax cuts only and maybe a little stimulus spending. Prez Hillary concerned about re-election just wants the economy to recover and moves towards the GOP plan, splitting the party for 2020.

[MT Treasurer]

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

When is a Republican going to get to 52% though? Fact of the matter is that a Democrat can probably lose the PV by around a percentage point yet still win the EC. That by no means indicates that a Democrat is a shoo-in but rather that any Democrat starts the electoral race with a headstart independent of the various "fundamentals."

That scenario is so unlikely. It is MUCH more likely that a Republican wins the EC but loses the PV.

[King]

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

When is a Republican going to get to 52% though? Fact of the matter is that a Democrat can probably lose the PV by around a percentage point yet still win the EC. That by no means indicates that a Democrat is a shoo-in but rather that any Democrat starts the electoral race with a headstart independent of the various "fundamentals."

That scenario is so unlikely. It is MUCH more likely that a Republican wins the EC but loses the PV.

And it is MUCH more likely that a Republican loses the EC and loses the PV.

[Lief 🗽]

Nate Silver is such a joke. Any analysis he has to do that doesn't involve averaging polls and he is very quickly found out as a complete charlatan. You gotta admire his ability to trick dumbs into thinking he's some objective analytical political genius though.

[Beezer]

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

When is a Republican going to get to 52% though? Fact of the matter is that a Democrat can probably lose the PV by around a percentage point yet still win the EC. That by no means indicates that a Democrat is a shoo-in but rather that any Democrat starts the electoral race with a headstart independent of the various "fundamentals."

That scenario is so unlikely. It is MUCH more likely that a Republican wins the EC but loses the PV.

Explain to me how how exactly is so unlikely? The Democrats have an EC advantage these days (albeit a very narrow one), that's what the recent electoral data illustrates. Obama had a lead of 5% in the "tipping point" state of CO while winning the national PV by 3.86 points. So a uniform national swing of 1.1 points to the right would have still left enough states in the Obama column to get him to 270.

[Nyvin]

He's wrong. go look at Jonathan Chait's column from today.

Obama will be the 5th term limited president but the parties have diverged ideologically; there are much fewer swing voters today than 15 let alone 55 years ago. Also, Silver should know better than to consider midterm electorates as relevant for whether or not there's a Democratic majority in presidential elections. In the latter, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and the demographic make-up of presidential electorates has been trending more Democratic still. He also dismisses the D electoral college advantage by arguing there is no "firewall".  Silver is smarter than that. Republicans can win but they have to sweep the swing states to do so. Democrats only need to stop a GOP sweep.

He's right that the economy is unpredictable and that Bush or Walker won't change the race much but calling it a toss-up is arbitrary. Silver is better at analyzing polls a month before election day than predicting with hunches (like when he gave Hillary only an 80% chance to be the nominee 2 months ago or whatever).

As I said 2 years ago, Hillary has the easiest path of any non-incumbent in modern times. I'd say she's close to 70% to be the next president, incredibly high for someone on the day they announce.

Nate Silver hasnt been wrong yet.

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

Yes he has been,  he was awfully off about his 2014 predictions.

[MT Treasurer]

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

When is a Republican going to get to 52% though? Fact of the matter is that a Democrat can probably lose the PV by around a percentage point yet still win the EC. That by no means indicates that a Democrat is a shoo-in but rather that any Democrat starts the electoral race with a headstart independent of the various "fundamentals."

That scenario is so unlikely. It is MUCH more likely that a Republican wins the EC but loses the PV.

Explain to me how how exactly is so unlikely? The Democrats have an EC advantage these days (albeit a very narrow one), that's what the recent electoral data illustrates. Obama had a lead of 5% in the "tipping point" state of CO while winning the national PV by 3.86 points. So a uniform national swing of 1.1 points to the right would have still left enough states in the Obama column to get him to 270.

They also have a PV advantage (2000 proved that). Let's just assume they win the Electoral College 270-268, okay? That would mean they lose FL, OH, IA, CO and NC. I have a hard time seeing the GOP win the popular vote while losing Virginia. The Democrats get huge margins in the big states like CA and NY, while the Republicans win their big states FL, NC and GA much less decisively. Also, small states like WY and ND are overrepresented in the EC. In 2000, almost everyone talked about how the Dems had the Electoral College advantage and how Bush could win the PV while losing EV, and well... you know what happened. It happened for the same reasons I mentioned.

Nate Silver is such a joke. Any analysis he has to do that doesn't involve averaging polls and he is very quickly found out as a complete charlatan. You gotta admire his ability to trick dumbs into thinking he's some objective analytical political genius though.

Yeah, he is way overrated. The media hypes him too much. Even I predicted last year that Republicans would win KS and NC, he got it wrong. 

[King]

There's no such thing as PV/EC advantages, guys. Take the 2000 election out of the equation and history just says, if you win the PV, you win the EC by a huge margin.

2000 is what we call an outlier. And it's just barely an outlier.  500 votes to Gore in FL, he wins the EC by a margin greater than his PV win.

[bedstuy]

There's no such thing as PV/EC advantages, guys. Take the 2000 election out of the equation and history just says, if you win the PV, you win the EC by a huge margin.

2000 is what we call an outlier. And it's just barely an outlier.  500 votes to Gore in FL, he wins the EC by a margin greater than his PV win.

Yeah.  The whole talk about specific states is pretty much just hot air too.  Both sides have money to the point of diminishing returns, they know the swing states and they can campaign in all of them. 

[Adam Griffin]

Nate Silver hasnt been wrong yet.

Nate Silver can't ever be wrong: when are people going to understand probabilities?

[Bull Moose Base]

Silver can be wrong about what probabilities are, and often is when not relying on stats. It can't be proven but it can be obvious, like it was when he gave Hillary close to 80% or something to be the nominee a couple months ago. Her being the nominee won't prove him wrong and wouldn't if he'd said she had a 10% chance. But it's also obviously wrong because of common sense.

Virginia has trended D. The GOP probably needs to win the pop vote by 1-2% to win enough swing states. That's what you call an electoral advantage for the Ds.

The GOP has only won the popular vote once in the past 6 presidential elections. Demo trends favor Ds. The gender gap favors Hillary with women making up a majority of voters.

The GOP regularly loses issues polling to Ds.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

While his 2008 and 2012 presidential predictions were pretty good (compared to Fox News's 2012 predictions), Nate Silver is becoming a bit tarnished as of late. I do still look forward to his 2016 presidential predictions though.