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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:23:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Nate Silver: 2016 is a tossup; most conventional wisdom analysis is flimsy
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Nate Silver: 2016 is a tossup; most conventional wisdom analysis is flimsy  (Read 7882 times)
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2015, 01:16:42 PM »

Remember that some of these models aren't always accurate. 1988 was supposed to be close, 2000 was supposed to be a Gore blowout. I think we are more like the late 1800s in that everyone is polarized. It would help Hillary beat the fundamentals if she faces Jeb and can run on keeping a Bush out of the WH and the people who caused the economic crisis.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2015, 01:25:00 PM »

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.

Except that it's not 2000 anymore. Several fairly close Bush states (CO, VA, NV, and NH) have trended Democratic since 2000, as have several Gore states (OR, NM, WA, etc.) While some Bush states have trended Republican (MO, AR, WV, and TN), there really aren't any Gore states which have trended Republican since 2000, except maybe PA. If you add up the 2012 Obama states which were more Democratic than the popular vote, you get 285. VA was very close to the popular vote, which is why you hear about the "272 firewall". Of course, some of those states aren't safe bets for the Democrats this year, but if the popular vote were a near tie, you'd expect those states to go Democratic. And if one of them, like IA, ends up more Republican than the nation as a whole in 2016, that means other states, like OH and VA, will have to shift as well.

At this point, if there is an EC/PV split (which I doubt will happen), it's more likely that the Democrat will win the EC while losing the PV.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2015, 02:39:03 PM »

I like FiveThirtyEight a lot better when they're doing objective analysis rather than subjective.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2015, 05:05:49 PM »

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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!"
I'm outraged that an year before the election, he suggested that the guy who went on to win by four whole points was a modest underdog.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2015, 05:13:37 PM »
« Edited: April 12, 2015, 05:15:58 PM by Monarch »

Romney surged to a 4 point loss at the end. He trailed by greater before the final few weeks. Obama was always the obvious favorite to anyone paying real unbias attention.

On the day that was published, he had a 6 point lead in NBC/WSJ poll, a 6 point lead in Politico/GWU poll, and a 4 point lead in the Marist poll. It was ridiculous for Nate to analyze it as lean Romney.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2015, 05:20:30 PM »

Uh, in 2011 it did seem like Obama would lose to most people. That was like a year after the 2010 blowout.

Nope. Right now it's mere months after a 2014 blowout. The polls were saying Obama was going to win throughout 2011 and 2012. The only response to these polls was always "lol libtards shaking in their boots!11 polls have too many dems voting."

Nothing being said about how Hillary is going to choke is all that different than the 2011 "ignore the polls, Obama isn't getting re-elected" rhetoric. Retroactively claiming there was ever a chance for Romney is false. There was never a chance. Romney's debates and final month went as well as it could've gone. He won whites by a margin not seen since Reagan 84 and still lost by 4 overall.  Think about that.

He never had enough non-white support to win. Never. He was always below 50% of the PV. The election could've been held any day from November 6, 2011 to November 6, 2012 and Obama would've won 366 out of 366 elections.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2015, 05:21:10 PM »

I don't see how it's a toss up when all the Democrats need are the Kerry states + VA, NM, NV.  

New Mexico and Nevada are practically freebies at this point.   That just leaves Virginia, which is probably one of the most obvious trending states in the country.    Even if the national vote shifts 3% toward the GOP from 2012, Virginia would still be winnable.  

It's just not a workable map for the Republicans.   They NEEEEEED a realignment.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2015, 06:12:14 PM »

I don't see how it's a toss up when all the Democrats need are the Kerry states + VA, NM, NV.  

New Mexico and Nevada are practically freebies at this point.   That just leaves Virginia, which is probably one of the most obvious trending states in the country.    Even if the national vote shifts 3% toward the GOP from 2012, Virginia would still be winnable.  

It's just not a workable map for the Republicans.   They NEEEEEED a realignment.
There tend to be large swings in elections.

From 1972 to 1976, the party that won by 23 points lost by two. So a lot of states swing hard.

From 1976 to 1980, the party that won by two lost by 9.8, and that was reflected in the states. Ohio, which Ford narrowly lost by less than a percent, when to Reagan by ten points. North Carolina, which Ford lost by 11 points, went to Reagan by two.

1988 was a good presidential cycle for Republicans, but Bush lost a lot of ground from Reagan's reelection. Reagan won Wisconsin by nine points. Bush lost it by 3.62.

Bush loses Wisconsin by half a point in 2004. Obama wins it by nearly 14 points in 2008. Bush wins Indiana by 20 points in 2004. Obama wins it in 2008.

States that got by more than ten points to a party aren't guaranteed for that party in the next cycle.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2015, 06:54:23 PM »

I don't see how it's a toss up when all the Democrats need are the Kerry states + VA, NM, NV.  

New Mexico and Nevada are practically freebies at this point.   That just leaves Virginia, which is probably one of the most obvious trending states in the country.    Even if the national vote shifts 3% toward the GOP from 2012, Virginia would still be winnable.  

It's just not a workable map for the Republicans.   They NEEEEEED a realignment.
There tend to be large swings in elections.

From 1972 to 1976, the party that won by 23 points lost by two. So a lot of states swing hard.

From 1976 to 1980, the party that won by two lost by 9.8, and that was reflected in the states. Ohio, which Ford narrowly lost by less than a percent, when to Reagan by ten points. North Carolina, which Ford lost by 11 points, went to Reagan by two.

1988 was a good presidential cycle for Republicans, but Bush lost a lot of ground from Reagan's reelection. Reagan won Wisconsin by nine points. Bush lost it by 3.62.

Bush loses Wisconsin by half a point in 2004. Obama wins it by nearly 14 points in 2008. Bush wins Indiana by 20 points in 2004. Obama wins it in 2008.

States that got by more than ten points to a party aren't guaranteed for that party in the next cycle.

Citing of the 70s and 80s doesn't persuade me there can be major swings in 2016, any more than citing baseball stats from 100 years ago would convince me home runs are rare and complete games common. We're in a different era with a much, much smaller % of the electorate have a low threshold for changing their presidential vote to a different party.

I suppose there was a big swing in 2008 with the election happening right after the biggest economic crisis in 80 years and if that happens again next year, I guess it could hurt the incumbent party. But the odds of that happening again don't feel like 50-50.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2015, 09:14:02 PM »

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.

Uh, no. 2000 was a pure Toss-up. George W. Bush almost blew it because he ran a god awful campaign and took FL for granted. Only a joke like Bush could have lost the election. McCain would have crushed Gore.

Bush had an epic lead at this point in 1999. He turned that lead into a 0.51 point loss.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2015, 09:28:05 PM »

Flimsy analysis? How did he find out about Atlas?
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2015, 10:32:28 PM »

Flimsy analysis? How did he find out about Atlas?

Yeah, it's pretty funny that this thread has devolved into the exact sort of flimsy analysis that Silver is railing against. Just completely unsupported assertions that a handful of cherrypicked data points have strong predictive power.

Has no-one ever considered that just maybe Nate Silver has done a tiny bit more research than you into what has predictive power in elections and what doesn't? And if the "zomg Dems have won the PV in 5/6 elections" had any significance, past election results would showcase it? (Hint: they don't. You don't have to be Nate Silver to work this out, have a look yourself by looking at election data and see if you can find any significant relationship between past performance and future results). 
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2015, 11:28:00 PM »

Flimsy analysis? How did he find out about Atlas?

Yeah, it's pretty funny that this thread has devolved into the exact sort of flimsy analysis that Silver is railing against. Just completely unsupported assertions that a handful of cherrypicked data points have strong predictive power.

Has no-one ever considered that just maybe Nate Silver has done a tiny bit more research than you into what has predictive power in elections and what doesn't? And if the "zomg Dems have won the PV in 5/6 elections" had any significance, past election results would showcase it? (Hint: they don't. You don't have to be Nate Silver to work this out, have a look yourself by looking at election data and see if you can find any significant relationship between past performance and future results). 

Looking at past results to predict future one is about all of what Silver does.

Not sure why you don't think past results have predictive value. A growing majority of voters are very consistent in what party they vote for in presidential elections, more so than in decades past. Recent presidentials suggests more people are likely to vote Democratic than Republican and the GOP has a higher bar to clear as far as turnout and winning over the shrinking pool of undecideds.

I also think his analysis is off the mark when he seems to acknowledge Obama would have won even if he'd lost the pop vote by 1-2 points. That's significant since the only pop vote the GOP won in the past 25 years they won by 2.5 points. If he doesn't see Ds as having an advantage in the electoral college, he's clueless.

He's made his name in looking at polling averages and projecting what they say about which way a state will go. He's great at that, especially in the closing weeks of a campaign but that skill doesn't necessarily translate to analysis in something like this.
Logged
Beezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,902


Political Matrix
E: 1.61, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2015, 04:12:23 AM »
« Edited: April 13, 2015, 04:14:37 AM by Beezer »

Has no-one ever considered that just maybe Nate Silver has done a tiny bit more research than you into what has predictive power in elections and what doesn't? And if the "zomg Dems have won the PV in 5/6 elections" had any significance, past election results would showcase it? (Hint: they don't. You don't have to be Nate Silver to work this out, have a look yourself by looking at election data and see if you can find any significant relationship between past performance and future results).  

Of course past election results can play a role in predicting future results unless you think the electorate makes its decisions based on a coin flip. As has been pointed out in this thread, we now have a deeply polarized electorate with very few true swing voters. So the fact that Dems have done better in recent presidential election cycles can serve as an indicator that they are heading into 2016 with an advantage as well, assuming the economy doesn't take a complete nosedive.

About past election results and their ability to predict future ones:

The correlation between President Obama’s margin in 2012 and his margin in 2008 across all 50 states and D.C. is .96. In other words, you can closely predict Obama’s margin in 2012 almost perfectly from his margin in 2008; his drop from 2008 to 2012 was fairly uniform, and limited the number of electoral votes he lost from 2008.



http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/12-from-12-some-takeaways-from-a-wild-election/
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2015, 06:26:00 AM »

Flimsy analysis? How did he find out about Atlas?

Yeah, it's pretty funny that this thread has devolved into the exact sort of flimsy analysis that Silver is railing against. Just completely unsupported assertions that a handful of cherrypicked data points have strong predictive power.

Has no-one ever considered that just maybe Nate Silver has done a tiny bit more research than you into what has predictive power in elections and what doesn't? And if the "zomg Dems have won the PV in 5/6 elections" had any significance, past election results would showcase it? (Hint: they don't. You don't have to be Nate Silver to work this out, have a look yourself by looking at election data and see if you can find any significant relationship between past performance and future results). 

Looking at past results to predict future one is about all of what Silver does.

Not sure why you don't think past results have predictive value. A growing majority of voters are very consistent in what party they vote for in presidential elections, more so than in decades past. Recent presidentials suggests more people are likely to vote Democratic than Republican and the GOP has a higher bar to clear as far as turnout and winning over the shrinking pool of undecideds.

That would matter only if a history of success tends to be correlated with further success. But it isn't.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because (and he and Sean Trende have gone into this in more depth in other articles), we don't have any good reason to believe that this advantage will continue. Historically, there hasn't been any consistent pattern, the "theoretical electoral college advantage" flips between the parties basically at random.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's made his name at that, but the fundamental tools he uses are broadly the same. And much of that is recognising statistical relationships when they exist and discounting spurious or weakly supported evidence. And a ton of the stuff that passes for "analysis" here falls into the latter category.

Has no-one ever considered that just maybe Nate Silver has done a tiny bit more research than you into what has predictive power in elections and what doesn't? And if the "zomg Dems have won the PV in 5/6 elections" had any significance, past election results would showcase it? (Hint: they don't. You don't have to be Nate Silver to work this out, have a look yourself by looking at election data and see if you can find any significant relationship between past performance and future results).  

Of course past election results can play a role in predicting future results unless you think the electorate makes its decisions based on a coin flip. As has been pointed out in this thread, we now have a deeply polarized electorate with very few true swing voters. So the fact that Dems have done better in recent presidential election cycles can serve as an indicator that they are heading into 2016 with an advantage as well, assuming the economy doesn't take a complete nosedive.

About past election results and their ability to predict future ones:

The correlation between President Obama’s margin in 2012 and his margin in 2008 across all 50 states and D.C. is .96. In other words, you can closely predict Obama’s margin in 2012 almost perfectly from his margin in 2008; his drop from 2008 to 2012 was fairly uniform, and limited the number of electoral votes he lost from 2008.



http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/12-from-12-some-takeaways-from-a-wild-election/

I'm not disputing that state results tend to be highly correlated with past results. I'm saying that the winner of the whole election isn't correlated with who won the last handful (the exception being: incumbents have an advantage).
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2015, 06:42:45 AM »

So I made a graph to disprove the logic of the "but muh 5 out of 6 popular vote wins!"



This graph compares the margin of victory (as defined by Democratic PV% minus Republican PV percentage) on the x axis to the mean of the past six PV margins of victory.

It starts from 1880, as that alllows the past six elections to go back to 1856, the first D vs R election.

The r^2 value is 0.007 (which is basically zero for all intents and purposes). So I'm pretty confident that the successes of Ds in the past few elections doesn't tell us anything meaningful (in and of itself, at least) about their 2016 chances.

But you might protest "1800s are irrelevant for present-day elections! What about recent elections only?" Well, I'm afraid it doesn't get any better. If you were to restrict it to say, post-WWII elections (1948+), the relationship becomes negative. (Of course, that's likely meaningless as well).
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,106
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2015, 07:33:12 AM »

Uh, in 2011 it did seem like Obama would lose to most people. That was like a year after the 2010 blowout.

There are people who have been here for years who haven't learned. And they're not interested. Midterm elections and presidential elections are not the same. And, no, it didn't seem like Barack Obama would lose re-election to "most people"; it seemed like Barack Obama would lose re-election to most ignorant people.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2015, 08:15:04 AM »

So I made a graph to disprove the logic of the "but muh 5 out of 6 popular vote wins!"



This graph compares the margin of victory (as defined by Democratic PV% minus Republican PV percentage) on the x axis to the mean of the past six PV margins of victory.

It starts from 1880, as that alllows the past six elections to go back to 1856, the first D vs R election.

The r^2 value is 0.007 (which is basically zero for all intents and purposes). So I'm pretty confident that the successes of Ds in the past few elections doesn't tell us anything meaningful (in and of itself, at least) about their 2016 chances.

But you might protest "1800s are irrelevant for present-day elections! What about recent elections only?" Well, I'm afraid it doesn't get any better. If you were to restrict it to say, post-WWII elections (1948+), the relationship becomes negative. (Of course, that's likely meaningless as well).

Nice graph. It is probably also useful to look at the volatility of the vote, perhaps by plotting the D-R margin, the 6 cycle average, and the standard deviation of the D-R margin during 6 cycles over time.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2015, 09:21:18 AM »

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 hasn't been wrong yet.


Making detailed predictions based upon a fluid reality is reckless. One might as well cast natal horoscopes to decide that the stars and planets work out best for some obscure politician in West Dakota. But some realities are rigid.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the last twenty years (six Presidential elections), Republican nominees for President have won Iowa and New Hampshire only once and none of the other states. Ronald Reagan won big in the transitional years between the South being heavily Democratic and the Midwest and Far West being largely Republican to the time in which the Midwest and West had become heavily Democratic and the South had become increasingly Republican. Such is a long-term trend that nobody seems to be breaking yet.

Can a Republican nominee win? Sure -- if he can make convincing promises to solve most economic distress with plutocratic oligarchy (because such is the Republican mainstream) or succeed at intimidating people of the sort who haven't voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1992 to vote Republican "if you care about having a job next month and food on the table for your kids".  Sure -- if there is another economic meltdown that looks as ominous as those beginning in 1929 or 2007.  Sure -- if there is a diplomatic disaster analogous to the Iranian hostage crisis or a military calamity. Sure -- if all of a sudden we have a right-wing religious revival that convinces a new batch of voters to have faith in biblical literalism, plutocracy, and American military strength because the only happiness that matters is in Heaven and delights in this world are suspect.  Sure -- if we start to experience a nasty wave of inflation with stagnant pay.   

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is much that we don't know. I see little evidence that the same sorts of people who voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton. I see no evidence so far of the reduction of political polarization. Quality of politicians seems not to matter; turnout matters far more. Change in voting patterns for President implies that the disparate Parties are successfully poaching what used to be shaky or even reliable voters for the Other Side. I see no reason to believe that.   

It is reasonable to assume that the next election begins as a 50-50 proposition in electoral and popular vote. But eventually the polls show something. 
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2015, 09:33:02 AM »

Clarifying what the polls are saying is a reasonably valuable thing to do, and was pretty low-hanging fruit in 2008 and 2012. But it's low hanging fruit because it's easy.

Has Nate Silver ever made actual hard predictions about the outcome of races? More than that, has he made predictions well in advance of the actual races? Has anybody gone back and run an analysis on this?
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2015, 10:30:56 AM »
« Edited: April 13, 2015, 10:32:29 AM by Mister Mets »

Clarifying what the polls are saying is a reasonably valuable thing to do, and was pretty low-hanging fruit in 2008 and 2012. But it's low hanging fruit because it's easy.

Has Nate Silver ever made actual hard predictions about the outcome of races? More than that, has he made predictions well in advance of the actual races? Has anybody gone back and run an analysis on this?
He has two conflicting messages.

First, he was credited with predicting the outcomes of elections by state in 2012.

However, he focuses on odds and ambiguity rather than certainty. It's an admirable position, given how many blowhards make promises without caveats which end up being wrong. But it contradicts the way he gets credit.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2015, 03:54:01 PM »
« Edited: April 13, 2015, 04:21:14 PM by Likely Voter »

Of course it is right to say that Hillary's GE victory is not 'inevitable' but it seems empirically true that she has advantages.

You may be able to dismiss the 'blue wall' as a concept, but one only need to look at how money was spent in 2012 to see that the GOP spent 47% of their money on the GOP 'must win' core/defense states (NC/FL/OH). But the Dems only spent 12% on their core/defense states (PA/WI/NV/MI). This shows that essentially the battle is being waged much more on the GOP side of the ledger, giving the Dems a clear advantage.

As with regards to demographics. They may not be 'destiny' but again it is undeniable that the demographic groups that tend to vote Dem are growing faster than the ones voting GOP. So again they get an advantage.

With the economy continuing to improve, all in all I would say that this adds up to the Dems having about a 60% chance of winning, which happens to be right where the odds makers put it (again follow the money).

Of course Hillary winning the Dem nomination may only be around 85%, so then perhaps it is around 50/50 that she is the next POTUS.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2015, 04:23:10 PM »

Of course Hillary winning the Dem nomination may only be around 85%

More like 99%, with the 1% being her dying.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 13, 2015, 04:40:23 PM »

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.

Where was he awfully off?
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2015, 04:41:37 PM »


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

He might be wrong on one or two states, but his overall macro assessments are correct.

BTW nothing sadder than a GA Dem. Even the IL-GOP is more successful than a GA Dem
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 13 queries.