Why Conservatives Are Petrified of Nate Silver

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I can't get your link to open.

Nate's an okay guy. Like many of us, he's trying to project certainty to an uncertain world. Methodologically, he's following reasonably sound mathematics. However, I think his data is suspect. And as they say in statistical projections, "garbage in, garbage out." I guess we'll see on November 7th.
 
julius said:
Um, 34 out of 36 senate elections correct, and being 8 off of the congressional seats is "very wrong"?
Click to expand...

8 off in the congressional seats is very wrong.

Note that Silver suggests Rasmussen was highly inaccurate in 2010. Yet Rasmussen predicted gains of more than 60 seats (Silver predicted 54) in the House.
 
Denny Crane said:
8 off in the congressional seats is very wrong.

Note that Silver suggests Rasmussen was highly inaccurate in 2010. Yet Rasmussen predicted gains of more than 60 seats (Silver predicted 54) in the House.
Click to expand...

88% is setting the bar awful high.
 
link doesn't work for me either.

I'm a bit confused on why a conservative would be "petrified" of Silver. So he projects Obama winning by 60+ in the Electoral College...? I guess I don't get it.
 
Why democrats are afraid of Michael Barone. Barone is the principle author of "The Almanac of American Politics" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Almanac_of_American_Politics

Why this matters is he knows the nitty gritty details of every nook and cranny in every state when it comes to politics and elections.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/baron...ney-wins-handily/article/2512470#.UJRuo2l245Q

Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president.

But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's jobs report showed an unemployment uptick.

Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don't identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney.

That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.

That's been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada.

...

Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.
 
wait, 315? I thought he was going to PA as a last-ditch, not as a padding-the-lead...
 
BrianFromWA said:
wait, 315? I thought he was going to PA as a last-ditch, not as a padding-the-lead...
Click to expand...

Pennsylvania (20). Everyone would have picked Obama two weeks ago. I think higher turnout in pro-coal Western Pennsylvania and higher Republican percentages in the Philadelphia suburbs could produce a surprise. The Romney team evidently thinks so too. Their investment in TV time is too expensive to be a mere feint, and, as this is written, Romney is planning a Sunday event in Bucks County outside Philly. Wobbling on my limb, Romney.
 
The fundamentals clearly favor Romney. The polls look like they're slightly in Obama's favor, particularly in the swing states. Yet...

http://voices.yahoo.com/general-election-polls-history-inaccuracy-869171.html

1980 (this one's for those of you who say - "polls shift over time")

Nov 1980, Gallup Pre-Election Poll
Carter 44%
Reagan 41%

Final Results

Reagan 50.7%
Carter 41.0%

Average MOE - 5.85% = the margin of error in every GE poll this year.
Click to expand...

It really SHOULD be a Reagan/Carter type of election this year. It may well be, and it would be equally as surprising as the 1980 results.
 
I figured it was because he is a well known Jewish gentleman?
 
Denny Crane said:
Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.
Click to expand...

That # is such a crock of shit, it's not even funny.

As things stand right now, safe Obama is 232 (re: cnn).

You're telling me he wins NO other states AND loses 9??

78 for the west coast (OR, CAL, WA, HI).
108 for NY, CT, MASS, NJ, DE, RI, Maine, Vermont, WDC, Illinois and Maryland.

That's 186 right there that is all but certain to be Obama.

26 for Minnesota and Michigan (more than likely Obama). That makes it 212.

You're telling me he can't get 58 points from Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (20) and 36 (Nevada leaning, Wisconsin likely, Colorado leaning, New Mexico leaning, Iowa leaning)?

Everything would have to fall in line, perfectly, for Romney to win, let alone win 315 EV's.

Obama would have to lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hamsphire and Virginia.

and that would be a perfect storm (no pun intended) for Romney.
 
Denny Crane said:
Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.
Click to expand...

So this will be a Republican landslide just like you said it would be a Republican landslide for McCain back in 2008.

Last time your confidence was based on Zogby. This time Barone. Have you started planning for your 2016 pollster/statistician to confirm your right wing bias for that election yet?

In that thread you said, "I'm not sold on Nate Silver or sabermetrics applied to polling at this point." He, by all accounts, nailed that election, and the "landslide" thing you were pushing looks pretty ridiculous in hindsight for 2008. I'm guessing it'll look ridiculous again in 2012.

I was pretty wishy washy in that thread. This time I'm going with the dude who called it right. I guess we'll see who is right in a few days.
 
mook said:
So this will be a Republican landslide just like you said it would be a Republican landslide for McCain back in 2008.

Last time your confidence was based on Zogby. This time Barone. Have you started planning for your 2016 pollster/statistician to confirm your right wing bias for that election yet?

In that thread you said, "I'm not sold on Nate Silver or sabermetrics applied to polling at this point." He, by all accounts, nailed that election, and the "landslide" thing you were pushing looks pretty ridiculous in hindsight for 2008. I'm guessing it'll look ridiculous again in 2012.

I was pretty wishy washy in that thread. This time I'm going with the dude who called it right. I guess we'll see who is right in a few days.
Click to expand...

The thread you linked was Zogby predicting the landslide.

In this thread, I posted what Barone predicts. Liberals won't like it. Thanks for proving me right ;-)

You won't have to dig hard in the OT forum to find several recent posts by me that are MY opinion and prediction. I'll give you a hint: it is nothing like Barone's. Tho Barone may have some insight that I don't.
 
julius said:
That # is such a crock of shit, it's not even funny.

As things stand right now, safe Obama is 232 (re: cnn).

You're telling me he wins NO other states AND loses 9??

78 for the west coast (OR, CAL, WA, HI).
108 for NY, CT, MASS, NJ, DE, RI, Maine, Vermont, WDC, Illinois and Maryland.

That's 186 right there that is all but certain to be Obama.

26 for Minnesota and Michigan (more than likely Obama). That makes it 212.

You're telling me he can't get 58 points from Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (20) and 36 (Nevada leaning, Wisconsin likely, Colorado leaning, New Mexico leaning, Iowa leaning)?

Everything would have to fall in line, perfectly, for Romney to win, let alone win 315 EV's.

Obama would have to lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hamsphire and Virginia.

and that would be a perfect storm (no pun intended) for Romney.
Click to expand...

I doubt Barone got his math wrong. Read his article for yourself.
 
Denny Crane said:
I doubt Barone got his math wrong. Read his article for yourself.
Click to expand...

thing is, it'd have to be a perfect scenario for Romney.

You can spin it any way you want, but he won't win over 300 electoral votes. He might win the election (doubtful) but if he does it's not going to be 300+ ev votes.

Again, he'd have to win almost every swing state PLUS have Obama lose some states he's favored in. That just seems to be unlikely.
 
Denny Crane said:
It really SHOULD be a Reagan/Carter type of election this year.
Click to expand...

carter wasn't exactly expected to get 95% of the black vote and a majority of latino. reagan didn't have the burden of a faction of his party being perceived as chauvanistic on 'women's health' issues killing his standing with women.

unfortunately for romney those things are offsetting the sluggish economic recovery. obviously if the election was just held with white males it would be 1980.
 
Denny Crane said:
The thread you linked was Zogby predicting the landslide.

In this thread, I posted what Barone predicts. Liberals won't like it. Thanks for proving me right ;-)

You won't have to dig hard in the OT forum to find several recent posts by me that are MY opinion and prediction. I'll give you a hint: it is nothing like Barone's. Tho Barone may have some insight that I don't.
Click to expand...

Who did you predict would win in 2008? Because it seems to me I remember you being pretty confident about McCain pretty ridiculously late in the game.

What are the numbers you predict now?
 
crowTrobot said:
carter wasn't exactly expected to get 95% of the black vote and a majority of latino. reagan didn't have the burden of a faction of his party being perceived as chauvanistic on 'women's health' issues killing his standing with women.

unfortunately for romney those things are offsetting the sluggish economic recovery. obviously if the election was just held with white males it would be 1980.
Click to expand...

was anyone else depressed over the thought of it being 1980 again?
 
mook said:
Who did you predict would win in 2008? Because it seems to me I remember you being pretty confident about McCain pretty ridiculously late in the game.

What are the numbers you predict now?
Click to expand...

Obama 280 or less EVs. Close popular vote. 55-45 or 60-40 Obama wins.
 
crowTrobot said:
carter wasn't exactly expected to get 95% of the black vote and a majority of latino. reagan didn't have the burden of a faction of his party being perceived as chauvanistic on 'women's health' issues killing his standing with women.

unfortunately for romney those things are offsetting the sluggish economic recovery. obviously if the election was just held with white males it would be 1980.
Click to expand...

Carter won several Southern states, tho. Reagan wasn't a mainstream republican type at all. Reagan and republicans opposed the ERA.

I don't think you're making the case you believe you are.
 
mook said:
Who did you predict would win in 2008? Because it seems to me I remember you being pretty confident about McCain pretty ridiculously late in the game.

What are the numbers you predict now?
Click to expand...

In 2008, it sure looked to me like there was Bush fatigue (as there was Clinton fatigue in 2000), and Obama drew some downright huge crowds.

However, I think if you look back on the polls, McCain was actually ahead until the economy crashed. I also think people underestimated how great Palin was for McCain, when you consider he had 1/8th the money Obama had and she drew really big crowds in her own right.

Last election, I wrote in Ron Paul. I'm voting for Gary Johnson this time - I encourage you to do the same.
 
I'm just mad I said I'd spend $150 of my $200 bet on ToB's favorite charity. Of course, if he wants, we can spend it all on whatever bar/restaurant we meet up at when he pays me my money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dviss1
Politics Nate Silver Says Relax
Replies
2
Views
366
dviss1
dviss1
truebluefan
Nate Silver Takes A Victory Lap After Obama Re-election
Replies
1
Views
277
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
BigGameDamian
If Adam Silver has his way, a woman will be an NBA head coach 'sooner rather than later'
2 3
Replies
81
Views
3K
H.C.
H.C.
Denny Crane
Libertarians Vs. Conservatives
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
MarAzul
MarAzul
Minstrel
Which polls / models got it right?
Replies
0
Views
525
Minstrel
Minstrel

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top