You don't have to be a Nate Silver worshipper to realize he's probably right about 2014.

[DanTex]

And by "right" I don't mean that the GOP is going to win the senate, just that, based on the current evidence, they are favored to win.

Nate Silver has a good model for evaluating the odds of election outcomes. Which, by the way, isn't that difficult. You basically take the polls and average them, plus a few other adjustments. In past elections, there have been other people with similar models, and they came up with similar predictions. The data is what the data is, and believing in the accuracy Nate Silver's projections doesn't mean believing he is some kind of super-human psychic, it just means believing that he is capable of building a solid statistical model based on polls, and that he is willing to look at the data and not let his personal beliefs affect his projections. Whatever you think if him, and whatever his political beliefs are, I think he's shown that he is capable of that.

This doesn't mean Nate is right, or even probably right, about anything else. For example, turns out he has hired a climate change denier for his new website, and he has a climate change denial-ish chapter in his book. So he's wrong about that, at least. Why? I don't know. For one, climate science is a lot more complicated than averaging polls. Maybe it's a marketing ploy, he wants to be seen as some kind of maverick. Maybe his ability to outsmart clueless pundits on Meet the Press with rudimentary statistics has inflated his ego to the point where he thinks that a few simple calculations make him more knowledgeable than scientists with decades of research on their side.

For whatever reason, his analysis of non-electoral stuff isn't the same quality as his election models. But his election models are still good. So, yeah, we're behind right now.

[Skinner]

1. I think that you are correct.

I find it somewhat amusing that people suddenly dismiss Nate Silver because he is saying something we don't want to hear.

Fortunately, there's still a long time until election day.

[Richardo]

17. Concur.

I'd rather have a realistic view of what's in front of me, than ignore it or explain it away just because it makes me uncomfortable.

Ask Mitt Romney, Karl Rove and FOX how that worked out.

[tofuandbeer]

36. +1

[Logical]

24. Same here with Michael Moore at times. nt

[stevenleser]

29. We are 100% on the same page. It's 8 months out. There is a lot of time. I think he is right

as far as a snapshot of how things look now. Lots of things can change and I think they will.

[Nevernose]

78. Plenty of time to hear about "legitimate rape"

Or how the slaves had it good or how they're experts on foreign policy because Russia is only a few hundred miles from their house or God-only-knows what else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It is also the midterms

deep partisans really don't want to hear it, but dems suck at midterm GOTV, don't get me started with special elections.

People should get to work on that. Locally I know more or less what ails them, shit I cover elections. Take my word, they don't want to hear it either.

But making the election relevant would be a good first step.

[magical thyme]

4. "But making the election relevant would be a good first step."

Best thing I think I've ever seen you write here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. If I got a penny every time I was told this

In different variations and language, from my locals, particularly minorities, I would be ready to retire now.

[MindMover]

43. Any ideas on what makes elections relevant with billionaires pulling the strings ...?

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Well there are many fixes possible

one of them is to actually address what people want addressed. Until we have publicly financed elections and polls who run on populism actually do what they ran on... two different parallel problems actually.

But right now, especially the poor and minorities do not believe any of these games in DC, or city council, mean shit or squat to them. And sadly, they are mostly correct. Of course if you are a millionaire in Congress, you are hardly going to identify with the needs of a working single mother in the poor areas of town...

[MindMover]

70. First, thank you for your honest response ... and not some smartass remark ...

So, the problem seems to me, to be a lack of responsible actions by our representatives or in other words, they are not voting what their own constituents voted them in office to accomplish ... am I right on this point ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. You are very correct

Though to be fair, a few of my city council were elected by and for business leaders and they do what they were elected.

It is those elected by broader sections of the city, that are not as well served

Some cities, like San Fran, have actually solved this little problem (partially) by using both term limits and publicly financed elections. No wonder they tend to be more responsive.

[MindMover]

72. Do you think we can get rid of big money in politics..?

And if you do, do you have any ideas how to accomplish the task, short of reversing CU . ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Citizens will have to be reversed

there is no doubt in my mind.

Short of that, well, states and counties (not all) are passing publicly finance laws. The problem is that CU overrides them so sooner or later that will be tested in Federal Court. Without reversal local laws will be overturned, supremacy rule and all that.

I guess not looking at this as a partisan is actually quite liberating.

I will give you a very real example of what is wrong with politics. My city is starting to look at following San Fran, San Jose and Baltimore, to cite a few, in a local raise of the minimum wage. One of our most conservative (read business friendly) members of the city council, cited a study from a PR firm that passes itself as a think tank as to how bad this has been for San Jose, which goes 180 from all other studies. (Yes I called him on it in the article). But he believes this stuff. It is a matter of religious belief. And the paper fails at multiple levels, including basic statistical analysis. You can bet though that it is getting lots of traction at insert chamber of commerce here.

Here is where media plays a role. I did not run home and wrote a she said, he said story. That be the cowards way out. I spent a good fifteen hours deep in policy papers. Most media does not do that. But that is what needs to also happen so people understand why CU is so damn toxic, and it is toxic. Most of our media has spent time throwing dung, but really not explaining this shit to people, partly because they believe the average reader is not capable of it. And granted, forever home stories, and planes going down and miners (none of which affect your life whatsoever) are very popular stories. While stories of what my local board did last week, that will affect you locally directly, barely gets any hits. So there is something to that.

[MindMover]

75. Agreed with reversal of CU ... and thanks for your digging out the facts and reporting them ...

Almost an unheard of reporter ... digging into factual data and presenting it to the public ... many congrats ... and please keep up the excellent work.

Now to the point of our conversation which is about our representatives and honest representation...

That is honest representation, not the kind we have today ... bought and paid for by corporations and billionaires ... we have agreed on that point

Where spinning the partially fact/belief wheel gets you exonerated from providing a vote that represents your constituents beliefs, or even comes close to what the representative ran on ...

I am going to point out that we could wait til hell freezes over for CU to be reversed ... and that is not exaggerating ... not even one iota ...

So, with that mouthful said, are we just supposed to sit in chat rooms on political blogs and complain away about this stupid representative or that one that takes thousands of dollars and votes the way the corps and billionaires want him/her to, or can we do something about it ... in the time between now and when we do get CU reversed .... ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. There are people working to reverse it

Common Cause comes immediately to mind.

But they are few and far between. Most people truly are stuck with just talking, and that helps those who are in charge. They like it that way, And when that does not work, well, they do all they can to suppress the vote and keep people just spinning their wheels.

Look at even DU. At the height of OWS, it had a chance, people here where stuck on being critical because they had no leaders and no program and no, and no, and no and no, and damn they are drug addicts. Hell, I have that problem with my editor at times. Her readers have these impressions so she does not want to mention that OWS folks are still very involved. Until that changes... we will continue to spin our wheels.

[MindMover]

79. Ok, so the corporations and the billionaires have money and lots of it ....

What do we have .... ?

We are the 99% ... numbers up ...

and most of us know how to use the internet ...

so how do we use a resource, the internet, a very powerful resource to motivate our representatives to do the right thing ... ?

besides writing them emails or telephoning them or getting out the vote or knocking on doors or demonstrating ....

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I hate to point this out

but it's not in the internet. It is in old tools that we forgot how to use, such as the general strike.

This is not going to be solved in the internet. It will be solved in the streets, like it always has.

Yes, you can donate money to a pol, my actual representative is the sixth wealthiest man in Congress. The number one is up north from here. One is a dem, the other is an R... and.

This is something that people will have to realize and why I said Occupy was a chance. We need a lot more of those and I expect a lot more repression too. The web is good to put the organization in place but I hope people have a few type writers as well.

Hi agent mike.

[MindMover]

81. Strikes, demonstrations, occupy put people at risk ... and many injured ...

and I think it is actually gonna have to get worse before we see major demonstrations in USA ... even with 50% living below poverty levels

the agent mikes and officer callahans are always gonna look out for the 1%, that is there job ....

and we are not talking revolution/insurrection here ...

this is a friendly conversation about a dysfunctional government that everyone including agent mike knows something about ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Yeah but that is what it will take

Social Security came out of strikes, wildcat strikes and other events starting in the 1910s.

Talking is not going to work, and begging is not going to work.

And trust me, I do not want to see anybody even hurt, let alone killed, but am afraid that is what it is going to take.

Social Security and the NLBR saved capitalism from itself, not that they teach that in history in HS anymore, and that is part of the problem.

[Wounded Bear]

3. I would word it differently...

He's probably right about the numbers right now. Which is a call to arms for Dems, not a reason for despair.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. How does he do predicting other things using his 'models'?

He only started commenting on elections in 2008. So there is not much to base this 'belief' in his system upon. I did nearly as well in each election he's commented on just from reading and thinking. He's called a few. His Senatorial predictions have been off about half the time by a number large enough to alter the majority outcome in this cycle.
He says the Republicans have a slight advantage, which is pretty obvious just from the number of seats each Party has to defend, we have to defend more, thus they have an advantage. It is not news, it does not require tea leaf reading to see it. At this point, which is prior to announcement by many of the candidates, the Party with fewer seats to defend always has an advantage. Not rocket science.
Does Nate predict well in sports, where contests are constant and there is lots of opportunity to show the excellence of one's skills? I don't follow sports so I have no idea.

[SomethingFishy]

6. People were claiming yesterday that he was "shilling" for the GOP

and for the life of me I can't figure out where that came from..

If anything what he is saying should be taken as a warning that we need to get out the vote and get the Dems to get the message out.

I mean really, what informed voters sees Silvers numbers and goes "Well fuck it, no point in voting then"..

[Capt. Obvious]

19. Not just that

they also called him "aspergers sufferer"

[SomethingFishy]

20. Wow... Straight to the ignore list..

I have a son with Autism. He's 10 times the human being that poster is.


Thanks for the heads up, I can't believe a jury let that stand.

[Kolesar]

32. Yes, that was my brother's condition

The poster and the o/p on that thread are DU trolls.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

56. Wow

A new low point for her, if I even thought that was possible.

[Capt. Obvious]

58. Don't miss her outraged gymnastics over it

kick-parry-repeat

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

59. I'm waiting for her to post....

...."I know someone who knows him". That's another one of her moves.

[Capt. Obvious]

61. She posted a link to a satire piece

I guess to prove he has aspergers - she won't answer me why.

And the piece says nothing about it. Someone in the comments of the satire piece posits that they think he has aspergers.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

64. She clearly was using it as a pejorative

A few weeks ago she dismissed adult film actresses as "mentally ill", it's her M.O. to shit on people.

What she did was the same as if she said "that Jew", and that wouldn't have stood.

[1000words]

60. Ugly post from, Sarah.

Thanks for making me aware of it.

[kelliekat44]

7. Instead of directing angst toward Nate, Dems should be figuring out and acting upon ways to make

sure his predictions don't come true. I have no problem with his analysis and he is not our enemy.

[Phlem]

27. That's not the plan.

3rd way will give it to the GOP this time to immortalize "See the R's are worse", then it's back to 2+ terms of the 3rd way again.

I vote for the Dems every fucking time, all the time, even when I'm fully disappointed by the Dems.

It's an intended loop by the 1%.



Thanks for the ACA Obama but we still need JOBS to Pay for the medical bills.

[Jackpine Radical]

63. Angst may be appropriate.

Anger is not.

[arcane1]

9. If we could STFU about 2016 for a few months, we might get somewhere n/t

[Xyzse]

10. +This much

∞

[polichick]

41. Talking on a message board doesn't impact elections...

It's the doing that matters - voting, gotv, etc.

Makes me laugh when people say we have to stop talking.

[BodieTown]

46. No s***

Here's a fact: The right is actively preparing for the takeover of the White House and Congress in 2016. The story came out last week on how our billionaire friends are going to take over local/state governance.

A complete lack of strategy, foresight, and planning is the equivalent of, "2016 is two years away, stop talking about it."

[Blue_Tires]

11. Some of the backlash came from all the news stories

trying to set the narrative that there's 'no chance' for Dems or the races are a guaranteed done deal since Silver got all 50 states right last time...

(and for the record, I'm always motivated to GOTV without needing some doom-and-gloom prognostication to spur me into action)

[Augiedog]

12. No

Again, no he is not right. In the past he has been consistently wrong and he will continue to be so.

[phleshdef]

23. Um, no... he has a near perfect track record.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Not even close to perfect on Congressional elections

He did very well in 2008. In 2010 his House projections were off by 11 seats and he was wrong on three major Senate races, Nevada, Alaska and Colorado.
In 2012 he was wrong about at least 2 Senate races. Two out of three elections he was wrong by up to 14 Seats. These are the facts.

[phleshdef]

42. As he often explains, Congressional house elections are very hard to predict.

The polling data for house seats is often weak. Being off by 11 seats in a house race is actually pretty impressive, especially since you are talking over 400 races.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. We are speaking of Congressional elections, not Presidential. When you are wrong

in 3 out of 30 races, you are wrong 10% of the time, not 'nearly perfect' but still very good. Still, in context of this prediction of a 6 Seat victory, being off by 3 and by 2 in the last two Senate cycles is significant error. If he's off by 2 or 3, Democrats hold the majority. In fact, we do so if he's off by 1.
Of the three Senatorial cycles he has predicted, he has been wrong two out of three times by a margin that would overturn the outcome he is predicting in this case. He's been correct once, wrong twice on predictions this narrow. His other calls were made far closer to the election, as he did not have the need to promote his new prediction business.
'He's always right, expect when he's not'. Harry Reid can tell you Nate is not always right.

[phleshdef]

67. 90% is near perfect in my book.

[stevenleser]

30. In what alternate universe is that? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

39. I just posted some details of his Congressional pick track record, which is not

nearly as good as his lengthy 2 cycle Presidential predictions record....

[Arkana]

34. In what universe?

He has NOT been consistently wrong, unless you're Dean Chambers.

[GoCubsGo]

13. "...based on the current evidence."

That's exactly it. One can't really blame Silver for pointing out the facts. All the hysteria and conclusion-jumping that resulted from it is a bit over the top, however. But, I think he just did the Dems a big favor. Hopefully, this will be good enough incentive for GOTV efforts.

[Triana]

14. Instead of getting mad at Nate Silver...

...Democratic candidates should be doing EVERYTHING they can to give Democrats something to vote FOR and Dem voters should be doing EVERYTHING they can to vote and get their friends, family and neighbors to vote.

IMO, this prediction is just a heads-up that says: "You guys better get your asses to WORK NOW -- or else this will be the result!"

It's really stupid not to take it seriously or to try to pass it off as "shilling".

It's DATA. Use it wisely.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

15. So if he's fallen out of favor with DU...

how he doing with the GOPers now?

[fasttense]

16. He didn't say they were going to win

He said: "Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup".

That's a tie not a win for the GOP. They have a lot of seats that currently belong to Democratic candidates to win. It's an up hill battle for the GOP. But they could pull it off if people are stupid enough to vote for idiot RepubliCONS, or if the machines are fixed just a little bit right.

[lame54]

18. If we are just going to hand it to them...

let's have the election tomorrow so we don't have to sit through all the terrible ads

[spanone]

21. maybe democrats should become hateful assholes to win more elections?

one. sick. nation.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Mid-term and second term doldrums.

Enthusiasm always wanes.

We gotta find some traction.

[PowerToThePeople]

25. The thing is, it was not even a full percentage point.

That can change easily in the time that remains.

No need for hair on fire yet.

[jbond56]

26. if he is wrong about 1 race we keep control. He missed 4 laast cycle. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. He nailed 31 out of 33 Senate races in 012

That's ninety four percent accuracy. It would seem unreasonable to demand greater accuracy given what he is assigned to predict.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. If he's wrong by that same number this cycle Democrats hold the Senate.

In fact, we hold it if he is wrong by half that number.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. Only if he's wrong in a favourable direction. N.T.

[jbond56]

57. your right. He missed 2 races the last 2 cycles. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. His election forecast is accurate for the time period in question. No serious person disputes that.

That being said, as the political environment changes his forecast will change, for better or worse.

[Arkana]

33. So far, Nate hasn't been wrong.

Can't abandon him just cause you don't like his predictions--that's what the Republicans did with that disgusting pig Dean Chambers and their stupid "Unskewed Polls" crap.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. He has predicted 3 Senate election cycles in his career, one he nailed them all

but in the other two he was off by two in one case and by three in the other. When you are predicting a 6 seat win, and in 66% of the elections you are off by at least 2, that 6 seat prediction is not nearly as impressive as it is if you say 'he hasn't been wrong'. Harry Reid would say Nate can be wrong, Nate said Harry was doomed. Yet he won. If Nate is wrong by just one seat in this case, we hold the Senate. He is usually wrong by more than one seat.

[Cryptoad]

35. Sorry,,,

We dont have time to get and work for Democrats Elections..... we are still trying to figure out how much Snowden ass we need to be sucking up! {sarcasm}

[Capt. Obvious]

37. meh

[Thekaspervote]

40. I like him, and his stats are usually right on

He is a self proclaimed independent and leans republican, has said so on various talk shows. I doubt that is influencing him- he is a total by the numbers kind of guy. I just don't get how anyone except the very rich could want this to happen. It just doesn't make any sense.

[herding cats]

44. If my doc said I was probably heading for a heart attack if I don't change my lifestyle...

I'd take his words seriously because that's what he knows about and does best. If I don't want to have a heart attack, I'd change my lifestyle.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough. Nate knows his election models and it's what he does best. It's not in anyway a personal condemnation on his part to state we're currently facing a real possibility of losing the senate if we don't make some changes.

In a case like this I see this as forewarned is forearmed. I'd rather know now while we can still change things, than find out later when it's too late. I don't understand all the angst I've been reading here over this current polling data analysis. We have plenty of time to do something about the outcome of November's elections if we really want to.

[rtracey]

45. Nate did us a favor

Run with it Democrats.... Nate Silver did you a favor, so do not look a gift horse in the mouth. He does not normally predict this far innthe future of an election, so he is telling the Dems.....get your ass in gear or else.... and I believe him

[Chathamization]

47. Maybe. Sam Wang and Drew Linzer were more accurate in 2012; I'd be interested in hearing from them

Though I thought Sam Wang's discussion back in October that the Democrat's might have a decent shot at retaking the House seemed a bit off. Still, his model in 2012 was more accurate further back than Silver's was (~300-320 EV around June, whereas Silver's was around 290 for that period).

[saidsimplesimon]

48. Dan, Nate "the canary in the coal mine"?

imho, Nate, and others ride the crests and fall of political tides. Statistical models are tools, sometimes used by opposing sides as weapons. In the end, what matters is winning an election.

If Democrats keep behaving like Republicans, moving farther right to pacify the screaming hordes of zealots, we could end up with another "media creation". Nate is giving you the clarion call to action.

I'm not going to list actions that will increase democratic voter turn out. If our candidates think a bubble of money is the only requirement for office, take a look at both the McCain and Romney failures.

[1000words]

52. It's not like he's going out on a limb.

The reaction here at DU is puzzling.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

53. People are hypocrites

Nate was a god when he said Obama was going to win in 2008 and 2012. Now he is simply giving a snapshot of what could happen if the election was held today and no one wants to hear it.

Anyone with half a brain could see the Senate does not stack in our favor this cycle. It would help if people here at DU even knew what was in play and who's retiring and who the candidates were before they run their mouths and shoot the messenger. They are equivalent to the casual hometown sports fan who thinks their team is going to win no matter what, and are stunned and want to blame someone when it doesn't happen.

It should be a kick in the seat to GOTV.

[VA_Jill]

55. Maybe….

but he sure knows jack shit about basketball!

[WinstonSmith4740]

62. Good point...

Nate amazes me with the accuracy of his predictions, but like you stated, we need to put everything in perspective...the guy's a number cruncher who looks at trends, stats, etc. to determine his predictions, NOT a psychic. HOWEVER, before dems light their hair on fire and start running around in circles, they need to remember that right now, this is a guess at best. We're still months out from the elections and anything can happen. Remember when Romney was favored to win in 2012?

What DOES need to happen is that the democratic candidates running for office need to (and this is an old tune) develop a damn spine, quit running away from ObamaCare, and run on all the positive things dems have managed to do, even with the Republican obstruction. And we need to quit wringing our hands together and get the damn vote out in November. The rethugs took over in 2010, NOT because people thought they had such great ideas, but because people on this side of the aisle tend to stay home and pout when they don't get everything they want, or they don't turn out in "off year" elections.

Oh, and by the way...Nate said the Super Bowl was too close to call.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

65. DU may have Nadered Nate, but the Dem Party is trying to capitalize

Getting daily fundraising email with Nate Silver's Doomsday Predictions. Should also work to raise awareness. If Nate gets it wrong, DU will hate him for being a charlatan, but I'd look closely at turnout. If turnout is up, I'd think Nate's Doomsday prognostications played a significant roll.

[Chisox08]

66. Instead of being mad at Nate Silver Democrats needs to get out their

and work their asses off to prove him wrong. They need to get out their and give the people a reason to vote for them other than they are not as bad as the Republican. Get out in the community and actually listen to the voters and not just the people who are donating millions of dollars to their campaigns. I would love to see every Democrat get out there and meet with the people, have town hall meetings with no time limits that lets everybody in attendance ask at least one question and they get a real answer.

[Gothmog]

68. This prediction is based on current information

Facts and public opinion does change. We need to get out and try to affect the public opinion on key issues

[Dawson Leery]

76. GOTV.

As of now, the highly unpopular GOP has a slight edge because Democrats are enthusiastic about voting. That is a fact.
We need to change this. The real campaign begins at Labor Day. What is the party doing to GOTV?

[idendoit]

74. I agree, you don't need to be a mathematician to believe he's wrong.